Atheistforums.com

Extraordinary Claims => Religion General Discussion => Topic started by: Paolo on December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM

Title: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 07, 2020, 12:58:43 PM
Direct question: among others, has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mr.Obvious on December 07, 2020, 01:28:17 PM
What would qualify as 'disproving'?
Why would anyone bother?
The fuck are people worshipping a tongue for?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on December 07, 2020, 01:50:25 PM
Isn't the onus on whoever's making supernatural claims to establish that this "phenomenon" is credible, well-documented, and worth investigation first?

Cause, I gotta tell you, it's waaay easier to make a claim than to disprove it.  Check this out: I heard from a friend of a friend's gardener's friend that a red yeti lives in the north pole.  Do you have any idea how easy that is to say versus how hard it is to investigate?  (i.e. personally flying to the north pole)

Also, I gotta ask why didn't they get a million dollars from James Randi?  Seems like easy money for someone with something legitimately supernatural on their hands.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 07, 2020, 02:03:20 PM
Signs aren't miracles.  Unless you missed the stop sign, in which case if a policeman happened to be on the scene to ticket you, it is a miracle ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 07, 2020, 06:09:53 PM
Being kept in a church, the tongue of St. Anthony probably has Covid 19 and can't taste anything anymore.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 07, 2020, 06:20:33 PM
Direct question: among others, has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?
Is there any organization on Earth that has a bigger collection of idols than the Catholic Church??

Leviticus 26:1
‘You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God.

As usual, christainty is the philosophy of hypocrisy.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 07, 2020, 06:59:03 PM
Is there any organization on Earth that has a bigger collection of idols than the Catholic Church??

Leviticus 26:1
‘You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God.

As usual, christainty is the philosophy of hypocrisy.

Years after I gave up belief in such nonsense, a friend asked me to attend mass with her. I was down with experiencing it from the other side. It was all I could do to suppress myself from laughing out loud several times. They came around with the $basket, I gave them my pack of gum.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 08, 2020, 10:06:42 AM
Is there any organization on Earth that has a bigger collection of idols than the Catholic Church??

Leviticus 26:1
‘You shall not make for yourselves idols, nor shall you set up for yourselves an image or a sacred pillar, nor shall you place a figured stone in your land to bow down to it; for I am the Lord your God.

As usual, christainty is the philosophy of hypocrisy.

Iconoclasm disagrees (see Quakers).  Also this is why there is Islam.  Allah Akbar!

Cassia - gave them a pack of gum ... typical Republican ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 10, 2020, 02:35:15 PM
"Group Overseeing $10 Trillion, Called "Guardians for Inclusive Capitalism", Signs Partnership With The Vatican" ... funny involving the Vatican, now that Pope Francis is a confirmed communist ;-) ... smells of BCCI, CIA, Carlyle Group, Bush family from 1980.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Simon Moon on December 10, 2020, 03:31:07 PM
Direct question: among others, has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?

That is not how this logic, evidence, and rationality thing works.

It is not up to skeptics to 'disprove' any such claim, it is up to those making the claim to provide their case (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument) for their claim.

Until those making the claim that this 'relic' is indeed: tongue tissue, ancient, was dug up after a body decomposed, belonged  to 'St Anthony', and, the only way it could have survived intact for so long is a 'miracle', I have no justification to accept the claim.

NEXT...

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 10, 2020, 04:14:17 PM
As a skeptic, I claim your icon is of a cartoon guy, not a real guy.  My icon is a real scene of a real place.  It is up to you to prove that you aren't a cartoon (AI) ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 12, 2020, 03:11:03 PM
That is not how this logic, evidence, and rationality thing works.

It is not up to skeptics to 'disprove' any such claim, it is up to those making the claim to provide their case (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument) for their claim.

Until those making the claim that this 'relic' is indeed: tongue tissue, ancient, was dug up after a body decomposed, belonged  to 'St Anthony', and, the only way it could have survived intact for so long is a 'miracle', I have no justification to accept the claim.

NEXT...

BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on December 12, 2020, 03:21:35 PM
Nothing says credibility more than grading your own project.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on December 12, 2020, 03:47:23 PM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...

Ones gotta keep the cash flowing to pay for all those layabout priests. A little “miracle” now and then, is mana heaven sent.....
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 12, 2020, 06:10:58 PM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...
Did you even bother to read what you posted??  Your post mainly consists of conjecture and little else. '... I've heard the catholic church.....'; '...probably scientists...'; Those statements are clearly just your wishful believing (not thinking for you have no evidence of doing that--think).

The church 'scientists' have a detailed and rigorous set of standards?  Really!?  what are they? How do you know the church does 'extensive investigations????  What do you think a 'scientist' is?  In your belief system is it somebody the chruch gives that title to????  A scientist is one who studies a topic using the scientific method--which means when a scientist proclaims that a theory is correct, he makes that data available to his peers so they can test it and see it is correct.  I know the church does not do that.  And you would not know a 'skeptical procedure' if you met one. 

Once again, your 'proof' is simply wishful believing.  And like the good little shepple you are, you simply swallow and wallow in all that the chruch tells you to swallow.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 12, 2020, 06:29:48 PM
"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."
-Hitch
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 12, 2020, 06:52:23 PM
Did you even bother to read what you posted??

Yes.

Your post mainly consists of conjecture and little else. '... I've heard the catholic church.....'; '...probably scientists...';

I agree. I have presented no hard evidence, because no one asked for it yet.

Those statements are clearly just your wishful believing (not thinking for you have no evidence of doing that--think).

I think that those sentences could be better written. Also, what? Did you just insult me? I am no believer, but even if I was, would I have to endure this pointless childish behavior you're displaying? Does raising a question makes you look bad here?

The church 'scientists' have a detailed and rigorous set of standards?  Really!?

I have been told so, yes.

what are they?

Well, honestly, to one freethinker to another, I have not researched this question properly to answer that. Thus, that's why I did not CLAIM anything, I simply questioned it.
 
How do you know the church does 'extensive investigations????

Again, I will have to document that to make such a claim, but thankfully I never did (yet). I can look it up, if you want to. If I am unable to find anything, you are free to (further) mock me.

What do you think a 'scientist' is?

I accept the usual definition(s).

In your belief system is it somebody the chruch gives that title to????

What do you ASSUME my belief system is?

A scientist is one who studies a topic using the scientific method--which means when a scientist proclaims that a theory is correct, he makes that data available to his peers so they can test it and see it is correct.

So, are you saying only peer-reviewed science is 'real' science?

I know the church does not do that.

I guess we will have to find out! If you ARE claiming something, however, you have to provide evidence for it.

And you would not know a 'skeptical procedure' if you met one.

I appreciate the nice little insults. They're subtle enough, but unfortunately they don't add much to the discussion. While we're at it, are you a dogmatic materialist? 

Once again, your 'proof' is simply wishful believing.

I have no proof. Never claimed I did.

And like the good little shepple you are,

You mean 'sheep'? I am just one person. The fuck?!?

you simply swallow and wallow in all that the chruch tells you to swallow.

If you're that delusional to think I am Catholic, then perhaps we should not continue this conversation. It would be like talking to a brick wall.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 12, 2020, 06:54:19 PM
"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."
-Hitch

Dear Cassia, I generally respect you, but what exactly is the point of this post? What are you trying to claim?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 12, 2020, 07:06:01 PM
Dear Cassia, I generally respect you, but what exactly is the point of this post? What are you trying to claim?
It is a quote from Christopher Hitchens, an author who speaks plainly about my former church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfqe5kK8z8M
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 12, 2020, 08:53:21 PM
It is a quote from Christopher Hitchens, an author who speaks plainly about my former church.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tfqe5kK8z8M

Thanks for explaining it. Regarding the video, I understand that Hitchens makes many great points, but I am not entirely confortable with it, either. Why the need to insult priests (or nuns, or whatever) because of the fact that they are ''virgins''? What's wrong with being a virgin? I feel that insult rather personally, too (maybe that's the reason I am taking issue with it, admittedly), because if it wasn't for the escorts/call girls that I ocasionally go out with, I would still be a virgin to this day (26 years old), being a very shy guy and all.

Maybe I am misunderstanding the late Hitchens or something?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 12, 2020, 09:20:10 PM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...

They are scholars, not scientists of course.  They follow the same standards of hundreds of years ago (to at least screen out Catholics who are too enthusiastic about a particular apparition.

Everyone is a genius here except you - what they say to anyone ;-)  Don't take it personally.

"Pope Francis commits to net zero emissions by 2050" ... nobody on Earth can drive, except for the Popemobile.  Because he wears a funny hat.  This Pope is actually an anti-Pope .. Pope Benedict was couped.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 12, 2020, 09:30:37 PM
Everyone is a genius here except you - what they say to anyone ;-)  Don't take it personally.

I understand that some so-called 'skeptics' are more dogmatic than their religious counterparts, unfortunately.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 12, 2020, 09:41:33 PM
I understand that some so-called 'skeptics' are more dogmatic than their religious counterparts, unfortunately.

I take an anthropological point of view.  The Catholic Church exists, it is really too big to ignore ;-)  I don't care if Our Lady of Medjugorje is scientific or not.  Reality isn't objective, it is subjective ... all the really important parts are.  If people saw an apparition, and interpreted it as the the Virgin, I am OK with that (the fact that they claim it and interpret it).  Strange things do happen.  Of course many of the regular processional miracles of olden times were magic tricks for the ignorant .. part of the excitement for the attendees.  I love magic tricks myself.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 12, 2020, 09:51:33 PM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...
Okay, Paolo, I've been too hard on you it seems.  I have read many, many questions/observations written by theists, some identified themselves as such and others who do not and are interested in some silly game of 'gotya'.  I read it to mean you were a defender of the catholic church--I was wrong to read it that way.  But, I don't really think what you describe as being a skeptical procedure in any way.

And yes, peer review is important to forming a factual theory.  In the scientific community 'factual' and 'theory' is redundant, since that is what a theory is--a provable statement.  And other scientists (well, anybody) can review it and understand that that is a factual statement.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 12, 2020, 09:55:17 PM
Okay, Paolo, I've been too hard on you it seems.  I have read many, many questions/observations written by theists, some identified themselves as such and others who do not and are interested in some silly game of 'gotya'.  I read it to mean you were a defender of the catholic church--I was wrong to read it that way.  But, I don't really think what you describe as being a skeptical procedure in any way.

And yes, peer review is important to forming a factual theory.  In the scientific community 'factual' and 'theory' is redundant, since that is what a theory is--a provable statement.  And other scientists (well, anybody) can review it and understand that that is a factual statement.

Peer review works sometimes.  But politics and egos and group think etc get in the way.  No human or organization is dispassionate or without total depravity.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 12, 2020, 10:00:05 PM
The reference to virgins is merely (a) sarcastic...what gives the right for self-proclaimed virgins to judge and persecute people on their sexual preferences and (b) ironic... because priests that are busy raping children are not really virgins anyways.

The protecting of rapist priests goes on and on.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 12, 2020, 10:07:09 PM
Just in case anyone wants to check on your local (US only) clergy. In my church a priest was raping girls as he was performing exorcisms on them. Imagine trying to recover from that. He confessed at least.
https://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 12, 2020, 10:39:04 PM
The whole god created a universe so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself to save us from himself is pretty wacked. But then again Brahma is the creator of the universe and of all beings, as depicted in the Hindu cosmology. Which one to believe? Ah I see it depends where you are born and who raised you. Seems like a path to truth?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 12, 2020, 10:50:15 PM
I don't believe in miracles because I don't believe in the supernatural. Are there amazing, wonderful things that happen in the world that I can't explain?  Absolutely. I don't pretend to have an explanation for certain unusual events but people who believe in miracles do. They claim to know it was supernatural intervention by a deity rather than a more mundane explanation. They are highly invested in their explanation, where I am perfectly comfortable acknowledging I have no explanation.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 13, 2020, 07:41:20 AM
The whole god created a universe so he could sacrifice himself to himself to appease himself to save us from himself is pretty wacked. But then again Brahma is the creator of the universe and of all beings, as depicted in the Hindu cosmology. Which one to believe? Ah I see it depends where you are born and who raised you. Seems like a path to truth?

Jews agree.  Gentiles are damned by birth ;-)  At least in Hinduism you get more than one chance to be born Jewish ;-)

There is no path to truth, because it is all lies.  Generation to generation, the blind leading the blind.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 13, 2020, 07:43:07 AM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...

Scholarly skepticism not scientific skepticism.  If one's standards are high enough, there is no point in believing anything of course.  Materialists stop just short of that.  They believe they matter ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 13, 2020, 07:44:03 AM
"You give me the awful impression, I hate to have to say it, of someone who hasn't read any of the arguments against your position ever."
-Hitch

For some folks, Christopher Hitchens is yet another dead person to worship ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 13, 2020, 07:45:30 AM
Just in case anyone wants to check on your local (US only) clergy. In my church a priest was raping girls as he was performing exorcisms on them. Imagine trying to recover from that. He confessed at least.
https://bishop-accountability.org/priestdb/PriestDBbylastName-A.html

But, but ... I thought they were all gay men? ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Simon Moon on December 14, 2020, 02:47:15 PM
BUT I've heard the Catholic Church just doesn't accept any claim of miracles, the 'experts', among them probably scientists, of the Church, evaluate those claims, and have very detailed and rigorous standards for their acceptance. It's only THEN, after extensive investigation, that the Church claims: ''It was, indeed, a miracle''.

Sounds like a skeptical procedure to me...

Again, you fail to understand basic logic.

What you are describing is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

Start with your conclusion (there are miracles associated with the Catholic saints), then look for examples that seem to demonstrate your conclusion. Ignore others examples that seem to refute your conclusion.

This is the exact opposite of a skeptical procedure.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Simon Moon on December 14, 2020, 03:22:33 PM
Scholarly skepticism not scientific skepticism.  If one's standards are high enough, there is no point in believing anything of course.  Materialists stop just short of that.

If one's standards are high enough, there is no point in believing anything of course.  Materialists stop just short of that.

This has nothing to do with correctly applied skepticism. Nor are all skeptics and atheists philosophical materialists. I am a methodological materialist.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. But until someone is able to demonstrate that the nonmaterial does exist, what should my warrant be to accept the claim?

Of course there is a point in believing in plenty of things. I am, after all, presented with some sort of reality that I can interact with. And I assume you accept that we all experience a shared reality?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 14, 2020, 04:45:31 PM
This has nothing to do with correctly applied skepticism. Nor are all skeptics and atheists philosophical materialists. I am a methodological materialist.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that the material is all that exists. But until someone is able to demonstrate that the nonmaterial does exist, what should my warrant be to accept the claim?

Of course there is a point in believing in plenty of things. I am, after all, presented with some sort of reality that I can interact with. And I assume you accept that we all experience a shared reality?

Your thoughts are immaterial.  Your likes and dislikes are immaterial.  None of that passes the scientific method for the most part.  So are you saying your thoughts and emotions are objective? ... or you don't have any?

Methodological materialism is very good, if you are an engineer.  It is not so good if you program a computer or write a novel.  The physical book is physical, as is the computer, but the executing code is ephemeral, and the idea in a novel only exists in someone's mind when they read the novel.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Simon Moon on December 15, 2020, 09:14:54 PM
Your thoughts are immaterial.  Your likes and dislikes are immaterial.

Yes, congratulations for pointing out that, out of pragmatic necessity, I am forced to make some presuppositions concerning the world I am presented with. Among those presupposition are: other minds exist, physical reality exists, we share that physical reality, physical reality can be studied, the universe didn't just begin 5 minutes ago, and my memories from before 5 minutes ago have not just been implanted in my brain.

And, I am making the assumption that you have the same presuppositions, unless you are a solipsist. And I believe, that the vast majority of humanity also has the same presuppositions.

These are properly basic beliefs that as a minimum, most of us have, because we are all presented with this world. However, theists, and other believers in the supernatural, claim that there is a further realm or reality, that is not presented to everyone in the same way all of the above is presented to us.

I am presented with other minds, physical reality, my memories, etc. I am not presented with miracles, gods, ghosts, Jinn, etc, etc.

Quote
None of that passes the scientific method for the most part.  So are you saying your thoughts and emotions are objective? ... or you don't have any?

Of course not, it's philosophy. But again, we all have to start with some presuppositions. The best practice, is to keep ones presuppositions to a minimum.

Quote
Methodological materialism is very good, if you are an engineer.  It is not so good if you program a computer or write a novel.  The physical book is physical, as is the computer, but the executing code is ephemeral, and the idea in a novel only exists in someone's mind when they read the novel.

Methodological materialism works great for any existential claim. That is where I utilize it.

Computer programs and novels may be ephemeral, but they are are still part of the material universe.

If you are saying that gods exist conceptually because they are concepts in the human mind, like a novel. Well...okay.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on December 15, 2020, 09:40:37 PM
I understand that some so-called 'skeptics' are more dogmatic than their religious counterparts, unfortunately.
Do you have anyone in mind as an example?  (so we know what you consider dogmatic)  Or will the skeptics have to take that as a given as well?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 15, 2020, 10:47:57 PM
The funny thing about xtian miracles is how mundane they really are. We have the creator of the universe here trying to prove his existence to us and the answer is some pickled tongue? Water to wine? Really? If I was god I'd put a saddle on a blue whale and do a fly-by, tossing 100 carat diamond necklaces to my adoring fans while blasting the entire planet with heavenly music. Then I would rearrange the constellations to spell "I am the lord thy gawd". Sorry Taurus and Gemini. This doesn't have to be so difficult. There would be no doubt.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 15, 2020, 11:22:07 PM
Actual miracles are mundane? Defining them as super-mundane is the gambit of the Pharisees taunting Jesus. A strawman argument.  From that point of view, the miracles of Jesus are mythic, and the faith healings of a Galilean shaman are psychosomatic.  Both religious and non-religious can't see the forest for the trees.

The opening and closing of my hand is both common and mundane.  Interpretation of that is contextual to the person doing the interpretation.  For some people, that context is the philosophy of naturalism.  That isn't my context.  My context is that such a simple action is a miracle, and it happens because all humans (and other living things) are demigods.  I am theist, but not Christian.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 17, 2020, 05:43:36 AM
I understand that some so-called 'skeptics' are more dogmatic than their religious counterparts, unfortunately.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/f7/e4/a9/f7e4a96be47c288d45a5a6511a546478.jpg)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 17, 2020, 01:17:17 PM
The true master race is very few people indeed ;-)  Got a giant cranium?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on December 17, 2020, 05:41:52 PM
The funny thing about xtian miracles is how mundane they really are. We have the creator of the universe here trying to prove his existence to us and the answer is some pickled tongue? Water to wine? Really? If I was god I'd put a saddle on a blue whale and do a fly-by, tossing 100 carat diamond necklaces to my adoring fans while blasting the entire planet with heavenly music. Then I would rearrange the constellations to spell "I am the lord thy gawd". Sorry Taurus and Gemini. This doesn't have to be so difficult. There would be no doubt.

I think the next time I have a male canine, I'll name him Lord, so instead of "the Lord my God," I'll have Lord, my dog.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 17, 2020, 11:37:41 PM
Do you have anyone in mind as an example?  (so we know what you consider dogmatic)  Or will the skeptics have to take that as a given as well?

''As well''? What part of my affirmations and/or posts didn't I justify, you little scumbag?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 17, 2020, 11:39:25 PM
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/f7/e4/a9/f7e4a96be47c288d45a5a6511a546478.jpg)

Do you have anything better at your disposal to make a reply of other than a fucking meme?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2020, 12:10:07 AM
Do you have anything better at your disposal to make reply of other than a fucking meme?
You are quite the delight to have a conversation with.  Your best stuff seems to be profanity.  Yeah--you are a real heavy weight. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 18, 2020, 12:22:26 AM
You are quite the delight to have a conversation with.  Your best stuff seems to be profanity.  Yeah--you are a real heavy weight.

Quit being a fucking faggot (ooops! Did I JUST ''profaned'' again?!) and stop looking at the way I write things, and instead pay attention to the damn arguments. Pussy.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 18, 2020, 12:51:49 AM
Do you have anything better at your disposal to make reply of other than a fucking meme?

Okay.

The claim is when the crypt containing the corpse of a Portuguese Catholic priest who died in 1231 was opened in 1263, priests found his body had been reduced to dust and bones, but his tongue was intact and life-like. Which is more plausible:

- This is a story that has been exaggerated over several hundred years by people who are motivated to justify their faith.
- This is a complete, premeditated lie committed by the Catholic church.
- This is a hoax committed by an individual who, for whatever reason, decided to plant a preserved tongue inside the crypt without the church's knowledge.
- The people who prepared his corpse were by some means able to preserve his tongue.
- By some process consistent with the physical laws of the universe the tongue did not decompose.
- A supernatural being decided to magically preserve the tongue of this priest for reasons unknown.
- The Christian god decided to preserve the tongue to communicate to his flock that he exists.

I don't believe a story passed down for hundreds of years by superstitious people who are highly motivated to believe this magically preserved tongue is evidence of their particular god. There is nothing I find compelling about this story.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on December 18, 2020, 01:11:52 AM
''As well''? What part of my affirmations and/or posts didn't I justify, you little scumbag?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Co-z2qxY4
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 18, 2020, 02:00:59 AM
That cartoon adequately fits your mental age, I guess. Jeez...
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 18, 2020, 04:49:46 AM
Okay.

The claim is when the crypt containing the corpse of a Portuguese Catholic priest who died in 1231 was opened in 1263, priests found his body had been reduced to dust and bones, but his tongue was intact and life-like. Which is more plausible:

- This is a story that has been exaggerated over several hundred years by people who are motivated to justify their faith.
- This is a complete, premeditated lie committed by the Catholic church.
- This is a hoax committed by an individual who, for whatever reason, decided to plant a preserved tongue inside the crypt without the church's knowledge.
- The people who prepared his corpse were by some means able to preserve his tongue.
- By some process consistent with the physical laws of the universe the tongue did not decompose.
- A supernatural being decided to magically preserve the tongue of this priest for reasons unknown.
- The Christian god decided to preserve the tongue to communicate to his flock that he exists.

I don't believe a story passed down for hundreds of years by superstitious people who are highly motivated to believe this magically preserved tongue is evidence of their particular god. There is nothing I find compelling about this story.

Woah! Finally a post that contains actual substance and not just meaningless ad hominem. This deserves a more detailed response than I am able to give right now, but rest assured, I will give this proper attention. Thanks.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on December 18, 2020, 05:06:04 AM
Christianity must have miracles.  Otherwise, more than half of the foundation of its bullshit is exposed as a sham.  The Catholic Church has a team of priests who are called upon to identify miracles.  These are holy men, and any scientific interests they may have are secondary to their mission. To show that miracles are happening means God is not dead, and the Church can still save your soul.  Holy men must identify miracles.  If they don't, they are out of job. 

But it's hard to identify miracles, at least as hard as it is to find little green Martians.  So how do these guys identify miracles?  Well, they travel to the sites.  They collaborate.  They interview locals, and when all the facts and data are carefully assembled and the explanation for the event cannot be understood, it has to be a miracle.  Why does it have to be a miracle, you may ask?  Well if you don't know why an event happened, what other explanation can there be?  It's a basic simple deduction, and that means it has to be a miracle.  But if there are other explanations, even if they are already known, they must be ignored.  Holy men are best equipped to identify what must be ignored.  They are highly trained professionals and others should not attempt to do this on their own.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 18, 2020, 08:03:51 AM
Again, you fail to understand basic logic.

What you are describing is a textbook example of confirmation bias.

Start with your conclusion (there are miracles associated with the Catholic saints), then look for examples that seem to demonstrate your conclusion. Ignore others examples that seem to refute your conclusion.

This is the exact opposite of a skeptical procedure.

You could have said all this without the cute little insult at the beginning, ''you fail to understand basic logic'', as if you were somehow a direct disciple of Aristotle or something. Hard to take the rest of the comment seriously after this.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 18, 2020, 09:12:48 AM
We are talking about an organization that dug up the rotting corpse of an ex-pope and put it on trial. A deacon standing behind him was "providing" his testimony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod
Not a single case of stigmata ever acknowledged by the medical community. I would think a true stigmatist would run, not walk to be evaluated by science, so a skeptical party may proclaim this miracle. Instead one time a skeptic managed superficial observation they find one-sided, superficial wounds that cease flowing immediately.
https://skepticalinquirer.org/2004/03/the-stigmata-of-lilian-bernas/
Not enough carbolic acid perhaps.
Invoking the blessings of Jesus, Pio writes baldly: "I am in need of 200g or 300g of carbolic acid for sterilising. I pray you to send it to me on Sunday."
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/padre-pio-faked-his-stigmata-acid-397811.html
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2020, 09:41:14 AM
Okay.

The claim is when the crypt containing the corpse of a Portuguese Catholic priest who died in 1231 was opened in 1263, priests found his body had been reduced to dust and bones, but his tongue was intact and life-like. Which is more plausible:

- This is a story that has been exaggerated over several hundred years by people who are motivated to justify their faith.
- This is a complete, premeditated lie committed by the Catholic church.
- This is a hoax committed by an individual who, for whatever reason, decided to plant a preserved tongue inside the crypt without the church's knowledge.
- The people who prepared his corpse were by some means able to preserve his tongue.
- By some process consistent with the physical laws of the universe the tongue did not decompose.
- A supernatural being decided to magically preserve the tongue of this priest for reasons unknown.
- The Christian god decided to preserve the tongue to communicate to his flock that he exists.

I don't believe a story passed down for hundreds of years by superstitious people who are highly motivated to believe this magically preserved tongue is evidence of their particular god. There is nothing I find compelling about this story.

That is a cultural meme you and I don't share.  Despise anyone who isn't the same culture as you, same education level as you etc ... more polite than condemning people for having a different skin color, but same motivation.

It was a regular belief, even into the 20th century, that well preserved body parts (or the whole body) upon exhumation, was a "sign" of immortality of the soul.  Apostle Paul completely denied this (you get a spiritual body), but the meme goes back to the ancient Egyptians (hence mummification).  Hence zombies and other un-dead stories from the Church.  The current practice of burial in a casket and formaldehyde is a direct carrying on of Egyptian burial practices (for the Pharaoh and later the rest of the Elite) from 5000 years ago, still going on today.

PS, I think some stigmata are real, but are psychosomatic of course.  Only a seriously religious Catholic could get them.  Why?  I see it as egomania.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2020, 09:42:16 AM
You could have said all this without the cute little insult at the beginning, ''you fail to understand basic logic'', as if you were somehow a direct disciple of Aristotle or something. Hard to take the rest of the comment seriously after this.

Basic logic of ... I am a genius and you are a moron ;-)  You are Ok with me, Paolo.

"WE ARE SLOW TO MASTER THE GREAT TRUTH THAT EVEN NOW CHRIST IS, AS IT WERE, WALKING AMONG US, AND BY HIS HAND, OR EYE, OR VOICE, BIDDING US TO FOLLOW HIM. WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THAT HIS CALL IS A THING THAT TAKES PLACE NOW. WE THINK IT TOOK PLACE IN THE APOSTLES' DAYS, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT; WE DO NOT LOOK FOR IT IN OUR OWN CASE."  - JOHN HENRY NEWMAN

When a Pope meets an anti-Pope stay away, there is a big explosion ;-p

People, even Christians, prefer the Seven Deadly Sins to the Seven Cardinal Virtues.  We want free money and free drugs.  We worship a different dead Jew (Karl Marx) and worship our own self uncritically (but are critical of all the rest).
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on December 18, 2020, 10:14:20 AM
That is a cultural meme you and I don't share.  Despise anyone who isn't the same culture as you, same education level as you etc ... more polite than condemning people for having a different skin color, but same motivation.

I acknowledged my bias in a previous post: I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't grant exceptions based on culture or educational level, one reason being that doing so is patronizing. I don't "despise anyone who isn't the same culture", I'm disagreeing with the idea that a preserved tongue is evidence of the supernatural or of the Christian god.

Let me add that I didn't start this discussion. I didn't post "Look how stupid Catholics are." The question is regarding whether the tongue of Saint Anthony is convincing to atheists and I explained why I don't find it convincing.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 18, 2020, 10:14:55 AM
Quit being a fucking faggot (ooops! Did I JUST ''profaned'' again?!) and stop looking at the way I write things, and instead pay attention to the damn arguments. Pussy.
For you bluster seems to be your 'argument'.  Look up the meaning of 'discussion' and try to have one sometime.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2020, 10:19:28 AM
I acknowledged my bias in a previous post: I don't believe in the supernatural. I don't grant exceptions based on culture or educational level, one reason being that doing so is patronizing. I don't "despise anyone who isn't the same culture", I'm disagreeing with the idea that a preserved tongue is evidence of the supernatural or of the Christian god.

Of course, it is clear evidence ("sign"/physical metaphor) of the Egyptian religion, the original one (and ignore those Sumerians etc).  I will believe people aren't egomaniacs (superiority complex masking inferiority complex) when the last critic chokes on the last criticism.  Of course ancient Egyptians, even in the New Kingdom, didn't all get proper burial.  You had to be rich to afford a copy of the Book of the Dead in your coffin.  There has been no progress in 5000 years, once government and the city were invented, they can't be unseen.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 18, 2020, 01:00:20 PM
Christianity did implement improvements, no doubt. Borrowing the pre-historic logic for human sacrifice as atonement and appeasement, at least they imposed a final scapegoat. Of course needless self-sacrifice as imitation of the scapegoat persists as does that yearnful expectation for the end times. It is a moral flaw to place your transgressions onto anyone else. We don't allow it in our judicial systems. How could anyone find the central tenant of this religion moral?. In any event the scripture promised a miraculous return of the savior during the lifetimes of the disciples. Didn't happen. Next.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 18, 2020, 01:29:55 PM
In any event the scripture promised a miraculous return of the savior during the lifetimes of the disciples. Didn't happen. Next.

Only partly true, according to some apologists. The doctrine of partial preterism seems to be quite popular among some theological circles in the interwebz.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 18, 2020, 02:52:56 PM
Only partly true, according to some apologists. The doctrine of partial preterism seems to be quite popular among some theological circles in the interwebz.
Being a xtian apologist is a very tough job. Not much to work with. My personal favorite is Aristides of Athens, 125 AD. Trashes the Greeks, "Barbarians", and Jews. Goes on to call the Egyptians the stupidest of all. Seems to me he is saying his god is bigger than all the others. Reminds me of that song "Big Time" by Peter Gabriel.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 18, 2020, 02:55:27 PM
Christianity did implement improvements, no doubt. Borrowing the pre-historic logic for human sacrifice as atonement and appeasement, at least they imposed a final scapegoat. Of course needless self-sacrifice as imitation of the scapegoat persists as does that yearnful expectation for the end times. It is a moral flaw to place your transgressions onto anyone else. We don't allow it in our judicial systems. How could anyone find the central tenant of this religion moral?. In any event the scripture promised a miraculous return of the savior during the lifetimes of the disciples. Didn't happen. Next.

Post-Christians are the flip side of Pre-Christian aka Pagans ;-)  The idea that progress has happened, is Heaven's Gate and Realian fantasies.  Even less respectable than Scientology.  Back then the gods were on Mt Olympus, now they live on another planet.

Ancient Christian apologists, pre-Emperor Theodosius (381 CE), they were thinking like ancient people, dealing with contemporary issues (some of which are perennial for all human beings).  They aren't useful as cultural appropriation tools for 21st century atheists ;-)  The alternative was purely theoretical ... Plato's Republic aka communism.  There is a lot of Plato's Republic in the Christian scam, see Myth of Er (Gospels) and Guardians (aka priesthood).  Christianity wasn't created by illiterate Galilean Jews.  Greek educated Hellenistic Jews, like Paul, were responsible.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on December 19, 2020, 04:50:50 PM
Guardians are now the space cadets of our glorious new Space Force.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on December 19, 2020, 06:04:51 PM
This deserves a more detailed response than I am able to give right now..
Yeah, well let us know what your pastors tell you to say will ya? We all wait with “baited-breath”.....🙄
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 19, 2020, 06:59:03 PM
Guardians are now the space cadets of our glorious new Space Force.

You prefer the Viet Cong no doubt ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 22, 2020, 02:59:49 AM
Yeah, well let us know what your pastors tell you to say will ya? We all wait with “baited-breath”.....🙄

What? I thought I was supposed to be Catholic. Why would I consult a pastor?

''Skeppies'' sure like to change their minds a lot!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on December 22, 2020, 08:23:56 AM
What? I thought I was supposed to be Catholic. Why would I consult a pastor?

''Skeppies'' sure like to change their minds a lot!
Good point, talk to a priest or even better, a bishop cause, they wear impressive hats. Surely a sign of knowledge,
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 22, 2020, 11:16:11 AM
Good point, talk to a priest or even better, a bishop cause, they wear impressive hats. Surely a sign of knowledge,

Those are court hats/clothes, from the 4th century Roman Empire.  The Emperor would have you killed, in a Christian way, for doubting his organization ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 22, 2020, 01:45:53 PM
Good point, talk to a priest or even better, a bishop cause, they wear impressive hats. Surely a sign of knowledge,

Sure, but they wearing ridiculous hats is surely not an argument against their position!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 22, 2020, 02:32:34 PM
Paolo, I am curious...if are you having doubts about your faith and/or the Catholic institution?

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 22, 2020, 08:16:39 PM
Sure, but they wearing ridiculous hats is surely not an argument against their position!

Of course it is, only fake-French people with fake French accents, holding a cigarette in a funny way and declaiming Existentialist poetry are cool, dude ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 26, 2020, 01:56:43 AM
Paolo, I am curious...if are you having doubts about your faith and/or the Catholic institution?

What sort of demented reading you employed to *conclude* that I even have any *faith* to begin with?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 26, 2020, 06:37:46 AM
Paolo, I'm not interested in your faith or the lack of it. However, I'm curious why are you suspicious about this particular one.

There is this preserved piece of meat which was identified (?) as the tongue (?) of a man (?). This man is a fransiscan friar who was buried in 13th century. Wiki says, he was declared a saint a year after his death and given evangelical doctorate in 1946.

The first things to ask...how can anyone know this remains belong to that man or even a human being for that matter? Is it possible to make these tests with the material at hand? Did they do it? How do they even really know who is the man in the grave to begin with? How did he die? It could be any kind of thing that affected a piece of his body. Bacteria, virus... maybe a comibination of various things or something happened after his death where the corpse was preserved? ...blah blah are the first things you should be thinking.

But let's think think that the remains belong to the fransiscan friar who was buried in 13th century. And the tongue is a tongue and it is really his tongue.

Let's make up stories.

The thing is, highly likely he was not to be buried just after his death. Because assuming the records are correct, he was a well known figure among the clergy and he comes from a rich family. Yeah, I bet it was easy and something extra celebrated to become a fransiscan friar when you come from a rich family. Anyway, the point is people would want to see his corpse and pray to it, touch to it...etc. So you could say that he wasn't buried just like that, probably he was buried when he really had to be buried. But then we also know his grave was opened many times while only one opening got famous after decades and that was when they 'noticed' the preserved tongue.

As you know, when living organisms die, they tend to decompose fast; stink, not to mention look awful...etc. which people have figured out veery looong time ago. Another thing people have figured verry looong time ago -thousands years before Christianity- is how to delay/stop that process as much possible with what they have. In some cultures, they have become so good at that, 3000 years later corpses have changed history. I'm refering to the cocain mummies.

If we accept the material and information at hand as correct/true we could be facing a piece of meat that is smoked and cooked with a great amount of incense burn in confined space, in this particular case just got cooked the right amount in his mouth, considering he wasn't a martyr, so he wasn't drowned, burned or hanged, because then highly likley his tongue would protrude and the result would be different. But then why don't all those saints have some cooked and preserved miracle parts? Because they can't make everyone a mircale saint, then it would lose value; its power. They already have too many saints going around. There is a need of different stations.

Moving further. After being placed in the grave which probbaly not an ordinary one as this man is important, a saint, in an air tight sarcophagus or something like that the tongue continued to be preserved much better than the usual with no oxygen.

Then during all those openings and closings -like checking a 30-40 year old oven- someone noticed the tongue that and told the others. Hoooray! All this people's jobs are to look for stuff like this. Because the someone who noticed that is a highly likely a someone who had seen a lot of corpses before and know there was something different with this one from experience.

In the 13th century, a miracle is not just the first thing to come to these people's mind, esp. in that circle, it is something they live for. And by that I don't mean they so innocently believe in it so much that's what they see considering the lack of knowledge and science, but they KNOW how powerful a miracle is as a political power and maintaining order.

So, among all those incense burn smoked saint meat, when a piece looks a bit different than the others, it is a great opportunity. Esp. when an already accepted character with a known background, a rich family is involved. The theological rationalisation is ready. They are the holy men and witnessing/interpreting god's sign for the stupid folk. Can you imagine the benefits and profits of that smoked meat? People still visit it to pray in the 21st century and probably pay for it. Actually now, apparently the tongue visists people around the world for them to visit it. (Take that, dialectic materialism! Baruch, that's your cue.)

Let's move on a bit more.

In general human culture, a species that constantly destroys, do unspeakable things for power and resources since it was able to stand, would it be a strecth to think that some people who know how to preserve a piece of meat for a long time, took a piece of meat, processed it, slipped it in the right place at the right time to reap the benefits and profits?

Does it matter? Do people and/or the church need any of these, or any scientific research for people to believe in miracles or reject them?

We can make up tons of stories about it, but it is really not important which one could be the correct explanation, close or not, or how successfully you debunk something like this. Because that's not the point for people who believe in this bullshit. This bullshit exists because debunking doesn't work. 

And as far as this forum is concerned, if you come here and approach to a piece of meat that is supposedly belonged to a man who died 800 years ago with sort of questioning in terms of what could have happened there and then, people would snap at you and make fun of it because it's complete bullshit. Questioning 'the case of the tongue of St Anthony' is not scepticism.

And beyond that, in my personal opinion, no atheist, no secular person or a scientist is responsible for debunking a bullshit like this.

It's like asking if vampires do exist and demand an explanation on how do they know that they don't? I have had this conversation with educated, secular people.

A- Do you think vampires and wendigos exist?
B- No, they don't. They're fantasy creatures created by humans to tell stories.
A- I'm not saying I believe in them. I'm just saying that we really don't know, do we? So how can you be so sure? Has anyone successfuly debunk the existence of these creatures?
B- Yes, we do really know that they don't exist. Because drinking human blood can't sustain human body, let alone give it some super powers and it will probbaly make you sick. Also there are no super powers. There is a reason why even the healthiest people are allowed to donate blood once in every 3 months, one unit at most. If you lose around 20% of your blood you'd die. If you try to live on raw human flesh, you'd get very sick and end in a hospital. 
A- You are being closed minded and dogmatic, we really don't know do we?
B-...

Do you have an idea how many people have come here to this forum with similar 'cases' in the last 15 years? Every kind of people. People who demand dinasour fossils to be proved real, because obviously we don't know for sure if Jews haven't buried them to con the whole world. People who demand the human evolution tree to be changed according the old testament prophets because obviously, idiot, heretic scientists can't get that these men are the original hominids and lived that long to support the evolutinary development of humans. People who demand quantum mechanics itself is the greatest proof that the world and most importantly, the universe is flat and holy scripture included that information thousands of years ago. People who are sure they have found the gltich in the matrix...etc.

And they ALL have blamed the members reacting to them sooner or later, at some point, with being closed minded, dogmatic assholes. Because almost none of them were actually here to question something, or get some answers, opinions...etc. They were all about what they think it is; because this one is different, something different than others. 

In short, when you offer an opinion on miracles in relation with science in a compatible, complimentary way, you sound like one of those people. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 26, 2020, 07:18:30 AM
Yeah, it was very common years ago on other atheist forums when fakes who pose as non believers and then submit posts completely inconsistent with that position. They give word play nonsense replies instead of simply stating their beliefs or lack of. What kind of atheist with half a noggin would bother with such obvious bullshit? Because to even consider this as a miracle means it ALL has to be true. So why not tell us what you do believe or not believe or else you are just full of bullshit.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on December 26, 2020, 08:18:06 AM
What sort of demented reading you employed to *conclude* that I even have any *faith* to begin with?
I had the same question, because you seem to be purposely vague.  Even when given a direct question, you avoid giving a direct answer, like just now. Most people can't read minds, so when you side step and avoid, people can only wonder what your agenda is.  Are you a poser?  Is your objective to become an enigma or a man of mystery?  These are all reasonable questions when you avoid communicating directly.  When asked questions seeking information, instead of giving it, you react with a haughty arrogance when we just want to know you.  If you don't want to be understood, why are you here?  This is not a 20 questions forum.

You reply to skepticism by using numbered apologetic answers that are from a proverbial theist handbook, yet get upset when people wonder.  It's like you are here to find reasons to act offended, which is another theist trait we see all the time.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 26, 2020, 09:31:30 AM
What sort of demented reading you employed to *conclude* that I even have any *faith* to begin with?
I guess most of us that have read your questions/statements conclude you are a theist posing as an atheist.  I am referring to how you frame your 'questions'.  I surmise that you are setting traps for us poor hapless atheists.  We have had many posters like that in my time on these forums. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2020, 10:04:51 AM
Yeah, it was very common years ago on other atheist forums when fakes who pose as non believers and then submit posts completely inconsistent with that position. They give word play nonsense replies instead of simply stating their beliefs or lack of. What kind of atheist with half a noggin would bother with such obvious bullshit? Because to even consider this as a miracle means it ALL has to be true. So why not tell us what you do believe or not believe or else you are just full of bullshit.

Atheists use rhetoric, it is only fair, as theists have been using rhetoric for millennia ;-) ... aka apologetics/polemics.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 26, 2020, 10:33:47 AM
Atheists use rhetoric, it is only fair, as theists have been using rhetoric for millennia ;-) ... aka apologetics/polemics.
Maybe I should go ahead and "bait around" on Christian forums. Just kidding, LOL.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2020, 11:08:45 AM
Maybe I should go ahead and "bait around" on Christian forums. Just kidding, LOL.

They would ban you, and you would like it.  Sounds like a fetish.  Of course maybe theists "bait around" is a fetish also? ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 26, 2020, 11:27:40 AM
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
-Groucho Marx
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 26, 2020, 05:06:05 PM
And yes, peer review is important to forming a factual theory.  In the scientific community 'factual' and 'theory' is redundant, since that is what a theory is--a provable statement.  And other scientists (well, anybody) can review it and understand that that is a factual statement.

Mike, with this, are you saying that in the scientific sense 'theory' and 'fact' are the same thing? Or is one equal to the other, at least?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2020, 05:08:17 PM
In science, repeatable observations or experiments are very close to facts.  In scientism, authority figures in lab coats trump authority figures in cassocks.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 26, 2020, 05:37:36 PM
Yeah, what a big surprise; more word play. More semantics. That's all theists are good for. They got nothing, never did, never will. Yak yak yak...extract the bullshit from the clergy you can bury them in a matchbook.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on December 26, 2020, 08:10:47 PM
They would ban you, and you would like it.  Sounds like a fetish.  Of course maybe theists "bait around" is a fetish also? ;-)

I suppose one could 'bait around' on forums of a theistic nature, but only if one were a master of baiting; when baiting-masters bait, they can do so with impunity, unless they catch too many fish, then they might well be banned.

I had no idea where that sentence would go when I began it...
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 26, 2020, 08:18:43 PM
Yeah, what a big surprise; more word play. More semantics. That's all theists are good for. They got nothing, never did, never will. Yak yak yak...extract the bullshit from the clergy you can bury them in a matchbook.

Atheists don't use words, they use secret decoder rings?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on December 26, 2020, 08:35:40 PM
up
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.
-Groucho Marx

That's why I never got married - I'd never marry a woman who would have me for a husband.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 26, 2020, 10:22:40 PM
Mike, with this, are you saying that in the scientific sense 'theory' and 'fact' are the same thing? Or is one equal to the other, at least?
Yeah, pretty much.  In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.".  A theory is a theory for all time--until and unless somebody demonstrates that a fact or some facts have been demonstrated to be incorrect.  Then the theory is changed.  Unlike a theist belief, theories can be challenged and changed or altered when proven to be more accurate.  Belief/faith is only based on wishful thinking with no facts needed.

For you, Paolo what is a theory?  What is the value and place for belief/faith?  What is science for you--and do you think the scientific method has value?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 27, 2020, 05:11:09 AM
Yeah, what a big surprise; more word play. More semantics. That's all theists are good for. They got nothing, never did, never will. Yak yak yak...extract the bullshit from the clergy you can bury them in a matchbook.

Yikes. You really are a sick and paranoid little runt, now aren't you? I would be actually surprised if there aren't corpses of "theists" lying on your basement. In fact, I think I can smell the scent from here.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 27, 2020, 05:17:56 AM
When asked questions seeking information, instead of giving it, you react with a haughty arrogance when we just want to know you.

I didn't answer Cassia's question because I didn't think it was a honest question at all-- it was a trap/bait. And my suspicion seems to have been confirmed by her last post.

Is there any honest question you would like me to respond?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 27, 2020, 07:04:48 AM
There is another thing about relics, artefacts, all sorts of cultural objects fo the past, historical monuments...etc related to their identification and evaluation in general, I think most people tend to miss and it is one of the reasons why they're so powerful beyond religous bullshit.

We were all born in the second half of 20th century or at the begining of that period and living under modern state standards -more or less/good or bad- we all have recieved some sort of a national and world history education in a linear sense. (I'll pass the linear thinking of history as the bullshit almost everyone here is aware.) This is actually a curriculum, not a real accumulation of knowledge. We all have some sort of a map of 'impressions' of foriegn cultures of the world, or ours as well as their places and backgrounds through human history in our heads.

Sometimes, this creates a natural, miyopic delusion as if people living in certain periods of the past -esp. the ones with written culture- did have some sort of an awareness, consciousness, or an idea that there is a connection between periods, eras before them, most importantly their connections to their own. The thing is, they don't. This is a fairly new idea for the obvious reasons, but most importantly because people had to discover periods over and over again. 

Then there are many manuscripts, texts and texts, chronicles and texts about some of these periods from ancient empires, generals, scholars, kings of the past. The pen holders, the clergy have already discovered and included in everything usable, right or wrong and correct or incorrect hundreds of years ago. That means politics (religion), making histories for monarchies, for god, for your king, for your dog's ass...etc.

These texts also got reproduced over and over again, because while obviously you can't say what kind of a homicidal bastard a cardinal is openly, you can always pull an ancient Roman story of a conspiracy, a dialogue maybe, and rewrite it with decsribing real, contemporray people with ancient names, in ancient places. You can do this anonymously, but you can do it with a pseudo names inspired by a real scholars and writers too.

So, the written source is a mess full of traps. But all that mess, lack of knowledge and scientific method, reasoning can't stop the human desire of recovering some 'truth' behind something; the natural human curiosity. What's this? What happened there? What happened then? What's the nature of this? What the fuck has been going on? OK, last one is me.

Interestingly enough, these discoveries of the past are largely owed to the intrigue driven by the conflicts between texts and objects, any kind and size of monuments because some of them are virtually uncorrupted compared to all other kind of evidence due their natural functions. Esp. coins, medals, signet rings, seals...etc. Even the awareness of this is a big, important step in history making.

We are talking about antiquarianism in simple terms and while in our time it is a very expensive hobby rich people have, it is also closely connected with the concepts of forgery -concerning texts at the beginning- which triggered the concept of 'criticism' as in recognising if something is authentic or not, and then created a main concept if you are to do that; context. There is a reason why all those terms are related to Roman law terms and medical terms derived from them. They're all some sort of detective story looking for a perpetrator concerning evidence, and tendencies with symptoms.

So, this business of chasing artefacts and replacing them into some contexts and places, narratives have this connnection to real history making and who we are; in some levels identities of nations (not in today's sense of course) and societies, aside from religous politics and it objectives.

However, it is of course again related to some means of political power, maybe in a bigger level than religous artefacts and miracle relics concerning history making, I dare say. Because finding naked figures of the false gods of those clever, sheet wearing heretics here and there is one thing, but accidentally discovering a grave of a man buried with his swords, weapons and his horse with that kind of harness, good amount of precious stones and golden objects, while digging a foundation for a hospital in the middle of Europe is completely another story. It has serious consequences, you can't leave that to historians and antiquarians, can you? 

Because obviously this is a real person who lived and died. And by the look of the precious loot, he is somebody important. Look at the harness and the weapons, he is a soldier. Oh look at the signet ring, he is a fucking king. Is he related to our king? What kind fo a kingdom he had? What did he believe in? Was he glorius and victorius, which battles he fought, which ones he won. How did he fight, how big was his army? You get the gist. Suddenly, it is far more bigger than a bunch of bones, with lots of rubies, golden bees and a dead horse.

So, yes they are all evidence of something, but only if you know which context to replace them. In this case, a preserved tongue of a saint is the evidence of the mechanism of a certain kind of faith; how religion works. It's not an evidence of the story, if miracles are real or the religion itself. Evidence doesn't work that way.

There is something undeniable about all kinds of historical artefacts, work of arts of the past, independent from their so called market value, beyond all that commercial bullshit, the information/knowledge in various contexts they have been placed and replaced over and over time again. They exist physically, right there in front of you. They are unique objects that they can't be reproduced because they belong to some time, something long gone. They evoke a sensational information, stimulation besides direct kind of information at times. By direct info, I mean a date, a name in inscriptions which are short and easy to do and can be put in small objects as well as huge monuments.

There is reason why people go to a museum because they want to see this or that world famous piece, but very often exit the building enchanted by a completely different one, again often not even widely heard of, sometimes even after getting dissapointed by something they desired to see whole their lives.

I accept that I'm a bit biased as an art historian but I do believe these objects have a powerful natural effect on us humans as animals creating art and culture beyond the bullshit pop culture Eric von Daniken and Dan Brown created. It's related to crushing concept of time, sense of history... the drive of trying to imagine the lives of people who live in the past...whatever you call it. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on December 27, 2020, 07:28:58 AM
Yikes. You really are a sick and paranoid little runt, now aren't you? I would be actually surprised if there aren't corpses of "theists" lying on your basement. In fact, I think I can smell the scent from here.

No, that's just the smell you get because your head (and your pickled tongue) are up your ass, poser. I don't have a basement so we just put your child rapists in the wood chipper and feed the fish.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:16:28 AM
No, that's just the smell you get because your head (and your pickled tongue) are up your ass, poser. I don't have a basement so we just put your child rapists in the wood chipper and feed the fish.

Not all pedophiles are Catholic priests.  Not all non-pedophiles are moral.  So when are you going to Auschwitz?  Pull the Jew out of your own eye before you pull the Jew out of another's eye?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:17:49 AM
That's why I never got married - I'd never marry a woman who would have me for a husband.

I think you underestimate your attractiveness.  You still need to meet the San Francisco Mary of Magdala ;-)  Which might be interesting if she was also a whore (as confused in folk Christianity).
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on December 27, 2020, 10:18:23 AM
Catlics are a while different world of delusions. Never heard of a Methodist exorcism, or Mormon, or Baptist. Only catlics are bat shit crazy enough to think the ole devil is preying on them, and then conjure up a whole new farce to drive the little buggers out of an already deluded mind.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:21:39 AM
Yeah, pretty much.  In science, the term "theory" refers to "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.".  A theory is a theory for all time--until and unless somebody demonstrates that a fact or some facts have been demonstrated to be incorrect.  Then the theory is changed.  Unlike a theist belief, theories can be challenged and changed or altered when proven to be more accurate.  Belief/faith is only based on wishful thinking with no facts needed.

For you, Paolo what is a theory?  What is the value and place for belief/faith?  What is science for you--and do you think the scientific method has value?

Religious people trust different untrustworthy experts.  Back when almost everyone was illiterate, a graduate of a seminary was a genius by comparison.  What science have any of us confirmed beyond precarious common sense?  We rely on mass media who choose what is or is not science for us (unless you watch actual presentations by actual scientists and mathematicians on Youtube or in person).  How is relying on mass media which is political and communist working out for us?  Pravda = Truth in Russian.  The NYT, former employer of Karl Marx is trustworthy?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:22:46 AM
Yikes. You really are a sick and paranoid little runt, now aren't you? I would be actually surprised if there aren't corpses of "theists" lying on your basement. In fact, I think I can smell the scent from here.

Some people are former Christians, some are even former Catholics.  You can't expect them to be receptive to fairness.  Do you expect Jews to be fair to Germans?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:26:20 AM
I didn't answer Cassia's question because I didn't think it was a honest question at all-- it was a trap/bait. And my suspicion seems to have been confirmed by her last post.

Is there any honest question you would like me to respond?

Cassia wasn't here for the Semantics Wars ... she is new.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVyc_pdjHNU&list=PLMF9QI2IvGC0LxrqdS25vwQ0qce8SqsaM

The war was so intense, the various protagonists had to escalate to meta-linguistics!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 10:29:12 AM
Catlics are a while different world of delusions. Never heard of a Methodist exorcism, or Mormon, or Baptist. Only catlics are bat shit crazy enough to think the ole devil is preying on them, and then conjure up a whole new farce to drive the little buggers out of an already deluded mind.

Jews would beg to differ, most of whom are atheist then and now.  Germans are demons and Hitler is Satan ... for real.  And all Gentiles and all Gentile leaders (fuhrers) are the same, they simply go in and out of active/passive evil.  Being post-Jewish, I can see that Jews are Gentiles too ;-)

@drunkenshoe ... so you seek to be completely free of the past, free of culture, because like Rousseau you want to live in Canada with the kosher (un-corrupted) Indians?  Or implement world wide violent revolution to kill off the Nazis (anyone not woke)?  Or simply being aware of the "framing" of all thought and emotion, would result in change (new Soviet man) as if the Soviet Union took over the whole world (in another universe).
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on December 27, 2020, 11:09:50 AM
I didn't answer Cassia's question because I didn't think it was a honest question at all-- it was a trap/bait. And my suspicion seems to have been confirmed by her last post.

Is there any honest question you would like me to respond?
No.  I'm not that interested, and I would have little reason to trust you answer, anyway.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 27, 2020, 11:37:16 AM
Catlics are a while different world of delusions. Never heard of a Methodist exorcism, or Mormon, or Baptist. Only catlics are bat shit crazy enough to think the ole devil is preying on them, and then conjure up a whole new farce to drive the little buggers out of an already deluded mind.

Exactly like their muslim relatives around here. 'Exorcism' provides easy access to girls and boys, and young women in private. Has anyone ever heard of a demon possessing an old man or a woman? Any men? Maybe in some horror movie as a villain.


Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 01:30:32 PM
Exactly like their muslim relatives around here. 'Exorcism' provides easy access to girls and boys, and young women in private. Has anyone ever heard of a demon possessing an old man or a woman? Any men? Maybe in some horror movie as a villain.

Turkish Muslim exorcism would be more of a Central Asian Turkish thing, not an Arabic thing.  But I wouldn't count all shamen as pedophiles.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 27, 2020, 02:37:18 PM
So with all the unsubstantiated vitriol against Catholics and Catholicism here, it seems that slander, after the standard mediocre ad hominem attacks of course, is the primary argumentative weapon of mainstream Internet atheism?

How disappointing, I must say!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 27, 2020, 03:42:28 PM
So with all the unsubstantiated vitriol against Catholics and Catholicism here, it seems that slander, after the standard mediocre ad hominem attacks of course, is the primary argumentative weapon of mainstream Internet atheism?

How disappointing, I must say!

There are very few smart people in the world, and even fewer honest ones ;-(
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 27, 2020, 04:50:59 PM
So with all the unsubstantiated vitriol against Catholics and Catholicism here, it seems that slander, after the standard mediocre ad hominem attacks of course, is the primary argumentative weapon of mainstream Internet atheism?

How disappointing, I must say!
I asked you a couple of questions.  Are you going to answer them???
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on December 27, 2020, 09:04:49 PM
Poor baby.....imagine how disappointing it is to spend your life on your knees only to have your most important prayers ignored. But hey, that toast looks like jeebus! Halla fuckin looyah!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on December 28, 2020, 03:02:00 AM
Poor baby.....imagine how disappointing it is to spend your life on your knees only to have your most important prayers ignored. But hey, that toast looks like jeebus! Halla fuckin looyah!

Are you schizophrenic?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 28, 2020, 04:05:45 AM
Turkish Muslim exorcism would be more of a Central Asian Turkish thing, not an Arabic thing.  But I wouldn't count all shamen as pedophiles.

They believe in jinns, Baruch. Remember that? It's exactly the same deal. According to the general belief, they are a different kind of 'species'; non matter, can move anywhere instantly and have their own culture. Some of them are evil, some good. They have families, societies...etc.They have different beliefs, they believe in different things like humans. They also can possess people. Mostly young women.

I've also written something about this regarding sexual abuse and masturbation sessions of young people. If you read about 'jinn encounters', they are all almost from young people and includes sexua acts of some sort. They're heavily oppressed about masturbation for example and this comes out as a jinn temptation, possession. The alarming part is that I also believe that -jinn or demon- a considerable amount of these stories are connected to some sort of abuse young people suffer.

Anyway, but I don't know anything about 'making 3 wishes come true' kind of Hollywood fantasy as a belief. I've never heard of it. I just know, Muslims are very scared of jinns, because they're very powerful and dangerous to their faith. Not some feeble cartoon like characters that can be captured and forced to make wishes.

That idea probably comes from some prehistoric scale ancient understanding of teaching people the consequences of having what they desire just like that I guess. No short cuts kind of warning, lol. Becareful what you wish for and all that stuff. What we desire and what we need are very rarely the same thing after all, human.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 28, 2020, 05:23:38 AM
So with all the unsubstantiated vitriol against Catholics and Catholicism here, it seems that slander, after the standard mediocre ad hominem attacks of course, is the primary argumentative weapon of mainstream Internet atheism?

How disappointing, I must say!

Ehh...what is the fucking argument here that the main stream atheism (?) failed to answer? What do you offer, what is that you put forward? What's your argument?

What are 'the unsubstantiated vitriol' against catholics and catholicism? The whole history of atrocities or the full protection provided to the pedo priests all around? Forget the annoyed atheist attitude, why anyone in their right mind would even be neutral to Catholicism? Or to any kind of belief and religion for that matter? You thought people would show some affection to Catholics or Catholicism as an exception here? Are you thick?

Ironically, are you aware that in your general attiude, you actually put atheists on some pedestal and expect them to give you some grand answers to 'deep' questions you don't even know how to ask, in a stoic, yet gracefully, divine manner?

What are we? A band of monks appointed to teach people all matters of reality? Are you crazy? If you just want to have musings and casual conversations, act that way. But the moment you attempt to mix mumbo jumbo with reality, esp. science, don't expect people to go 'hmm...yeah...you think so?...mmm...' because we already do that in some way in real life all the time. Here, somebody will likely to make you a chew toy. No, they are not angry or 'evil', they are fucking sick of it. And this is their space.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on December 28, 2020, 07:44:08 AM
the moment you attempt to mix mumbo jumbo with reality, esp. science, don't expect people to go 'hmm...yeah...you think so?...mmm...' because we already do that in some way in real life all the time.
Theists and the uncommitted see these as reasonable musings.  But most atheists, the ones that were once indoctrinated anyway, have mused these things to death earlier in our lives.  At some, point we realized they can't be supported through reason, and we understand that further musings always lead to the same "nowhere." Those who have been atheists their entire lives simply skip the beating heads against the wall phase, and ask for evidence.

Eventually, theist's questions become redundant and irrelevant.  But theists or fence sitter wannabes, seem to assume that atheists have never confronted their questions before, like they are bringing something new to the table.  It's not new.  It has been inspected and rejected.  It's not that their answers may be right, but that their questions are wrong.  'hmm...yeah...you think so?...mmm...' is not a valid question, and provides no evidence.

We used to have these kinds of discussions at 3:00 AM in college dorm rooms while smoking pot.  We thought we were being profound and intellectual at the time.  Nothing ever came of it. 

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on December 28, 2020, 09:32:17 AM
Yeah, I agree with you. But just to make it clear, I meant that '...mmm...' as an example of the reaction they seek from atheists in general, on any comment or opinion, not as a questioning line. (You know when in RL we ignore believers like that? after all we don't get to discuss these with people everyday. Here is different.) Honestly, I don't think there is an agenda behind it most of the time either. Some of them really do want to be included in some way and hear some comments and opinions.

Understanding the validity of a questioning line in this context is the whole point itself. That's the threshold, isn't it? That's how you climb out from the daddy in the sky crib. And at the beginning, it is OK to go through all that. But you can't teach that. People have to learn that by themselves. Nobody can open or show some door for anyone to go through. Even if you get that power over someone one in a million chance, you shouldn't. And if you are really into 'questioning' something, anything... there are countless resources you can reach in a moment, books you can pick up. Everything starts with simple curiosity, then scepticism...etc...then you pick up things on the road and by accumulation arrive to a point.

But this common child like attitude of these people, treating atheists like adults in the room makes me uncomfortable. I really don't get what kind of a psyhcology is there behind it. Is it an attempt of reaching, we don't get? I mean, do some people come here because, you know unconsciously they arrive at some crossroads but don't know how to act? What the fuck is it?

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 28, 2020, 10:39:48 AM
Paolo, I've asked you a couple of questions.  Why are you not answering them????
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on December 28, 2020, 10:47:21 AM
Yeah, I agree with you. But just to make it clear, I meant that '...mmm...' as an example of the reaction they seek from atheists in general, on any comment or opinion, not as a questioning line.
I did understand that. I think it's an attempt to validate their own belief.  For us to concede 'hmm...yeah...you think so?...mmm...' is a validation that if no evidence exists either way, then their belief is as valid as our lack of belief.  This argument from ignorance is widely used in religion in an attempt to fill the vacuum with more vacuum.  The atheist says, "if there is no evidence, no belief is valid  The theist says, "If there is no evidence, my belief is valid."  They think they have us over the barrel, because we are admitting we don't know. I mean they actually think they have kicked our asses in a debate.

To be fair, some theists understand this, some can be made to understand it, but many will never understand it.

I really don't get what kind of a psyhcology is there behind it. Is it an attempt of reaching, we don't get? I mean, do some people come here because, you know unconsciously they arrive at some crossroads but don't know how to act? What the fuck is it?
Everyone wants to be validated.  Getting it from an atheist or a scientist would be the big prize, but that is seldom forthcoming.  Psychology is probably too complicated to explain all the motivations involved, and with someone as closed or vague as Paolo, it's not even worth trying to understand what he's doing.  I'm pretty sure we make him angry, and he feels justified (rightly or wrongly) in telling us why.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on December 28, 2020, 11:37:34 AM
Paolo is rendered as 'Paul' in english and is also a silver Papal coin.  Add that to the way he has been trying to lay trap after trap with his vague questions; he thinks he is being clever by posing as an atheist while tricking us poor souls.  He also just talks about catholic stuff and not other sects or religions.  I guess he thinks he is earning anti-sin points or something by leading us sinners to the light.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on December 28, 2020, 12:17:40 PM
Theists and the uncommitted see these as reasonable musings.  But most atheists, the ones that were once indoctrinated anyway, have mused these things to death earlier in our lives.  At some, point we realized they can't be supported through reason, and we understand that further musings always lead to the same "nowhere." Those who have been atheists their entire lives simply skip the beating heads against the wall phase, and ask for evidence.

Eventually, theist's questions become redundant and irrelevant.  But theists or fence sitter wannabes, seem to assume that atheists have never confronted their questions before, like they are bringing something new to the table.  It's not new.  It has been inspected and rejected.  It's not that their answers may be right, but that their questions are wrong.  'hmm...yeah...you think so?...mmm...' is not a valid question, and provides no evidence.

We used to have these kinds of discussions at 3:00 AM in college dorm rooms while smoking pot.  We thought we were being profound and intellectual at the time.  Nothing ever came of it.

Atheists smoke Pot, theists take LSD ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 05, 2021, 01:09:10 AM
For you, Paolo what is a theory?  What is the value and place for belief/faith?  What is science for you--and do you think the scientific method has value?

Hi Mike, sorry for the delay. This particular holiday season really has made my personal life a mess, ''time-wise''.

For me, a ''theory'' in the scientific sense is more or less what you described -- a body of facts with an explanation to anchor and unite them. It's the complete opposite of what ''theory'' means in the common sense.

Belief is something all humans have, be they theists or scientists. What varies is how well our ''beliefs'' are justified. Hence Plato's idea of ''true justified belief'' (I personally prefer simply ''justified belief''). ''Faith'', in the modern sense, is a belief without facts to support it. But I think there is some evidence that this is not the same sense which the ancients (who ''invented'' this word) used the term; Protestant Christian apologist J.P. Holding has some interesting ideas about this particular point.

''Science'', as Ludwig Krippahl puts it, is simply a TOOL. A tool for what? Discovering stuff about and studying the ''universe'', or the natural world, as it is. Mind you that there is not objective evidence that the natural/material world even exists outside our minds in the first place -- I believe solipsism has been mentioned in this thread already. It is, to me, the most useful tool yet for gaining knowledge. Some say ''science is a form/method of testing''. To me, it is simply testing. There is no knowledge about anything outside the realm of science, at least not in a practical sense. Does that make me a ''dogmatic scientific materialistic atheist''? Maybe.

Thus, I believe the last question is already answered -- I believe the scientific method is enormously useful, and is by far the most efficient method of studying our external reality. And this is certainly not only due to the technological advances that it has brought to our modern, Western lives. So yes, it definitely has value. A lot.

I hope this makes sense and has answered your questions. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 05, 2021, 09:19:40 AM
Hi Mike, sorry for the delay. This particular holiday season really has made my personal life a mess, ''time-wise''.

For me, a ''theory'' in the scientific sense is more or less what you described -- a body of facts with an explanation to anchor and unite them. It's the complete opposite of what ''theory'' means in the common sense.

Belief is something all humans have, be they theists or scientists. What varies is how well our ''beliefs'' are justified. Hence Plato's idea of ''true justified belief'' (I personally prefer simply ''justified belief''). ''Faith'', in the modern sense, is a belief without facts to support it. But I think there is some evidence that this is not the same sense which the ancients (who ''invented'' this word) used the term; Protestant Christian apologist J.P. Holding has some interesting ideas about this particular point.

''Science'', as Ludwig Krippahl puts it, is simply a TOOL. A tool for what? Discovering stuff about and studying the ''universe'', or the natural world, as it is. Mind you that there is not objective evidence that the natural/material world even exists outside our minds in the first place -- I believe solipsism has been mentioned in this thread already. It is, to me, the most useful tool yet for gaining knowledge. Some say ''science is a form/method of testing''. To me, it is simply testing. There is no knowledge about anything outside the realm of science, at least not in a practical sense. Does that make me a ''dogmatic scientific materialistic atheist''? Maybe.

Thus, I believe the last question is already answered -- I believe the scientific method is enormously useful, and is by far the most efficient method of studying our external reality. And this is certainly not only due to the technological advances that it has brought to our modern, Western lives. So yes, it definitely has value. A lot.

I hope this makes sense and has answered your questions.

Yes, answered my questions.  Thanks for the post.  I'm not a solipsist.  And I do think the scientific method is the only accurate way to search for knowledge.  I think--and I exist.  But, because of the scientific method, it has been determined that gravity works on this planet.  The scientific process proves it.  I can understand that, as can most everybody that I know does too.  I can't believe gravity to go away or believe something else to make it change.  To change our understanding of gravity one has to use the scientific process. 

This may be semantics, but I don't really 'believe' anything.  Either there are facts to support something or there isn't.  So, rather than saying I believe the sun will rise tomorrow, I say that I think the sun will rise tomorrow.  And I will continue to think that until I have some evidence to demonstrate that it will not.  Belief and faith are simply words/tools to fleece the sheeple. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 09:59:50 AM
I remembered this from when I was young ...

Miracles by Jefferson Starship (rock song lyric)

If only you believe like I believe, baby (if only you believe like I believe)
We'd get by
If only you believe in miracles (if only you believed in miracles so would i)
If only you believe like I believe, baby (if only you believe like I believe)
We'd get by
If only you believe in miracles (if only you believed in miracles so would i)

This was brought up by search, don't remember it, but it speaks to me today

I Believe In Miracles by Ramones (rock song lyric)

"I used to be on an endless run
Believed in miracles 'cause I'm one
I've been blessed with the power to survive
After all these years I'm still alive"

Theology has nothing to do with science or politics, it has to do with poetry & song ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 05, 2021, 10:47:56 AM
Direct question: among others, has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?

This is a miracle?!?

I guess it's easy to have miracles if you lower your standards like that.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 10:50:28 AM
This is a miracle?!?

I guess it's easy to have miracles if you lower your standards like that.

That is what the Pharisees said.  Nothing new under the Sun, not even 21st century Pharisees.

The word is "sign" .. which has nothing to do with Enlightenment-tards straw man arguments.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 05, 2021, 11:03:20 AM
That is what the Pharisees said.  Nothing new under the Sun, not even 21st century Pharisees.

The word is "sign" .. which has nothing to do with Enlightenment-tards straw man arguments.

Well, it's not exactly healing cripples, now is it? They exhumed a body and found part of it was not what they had expected and that's called a miracle. Better question is why did you expect something else. Dead bodies tend to do weird things as they break down. Back in the day, this would have been taken as a sign of witchcraft or vampirism on the part of the deceased and they'd burn it.

All of this is besides the point in that it makes me very glad to not be a catholic. Because if I was and made a mistake in being an important catholic, they'd cut up my body and display it in little glass cases. It's a ghoulish practice and they should be very ashamed of their religion because of it. More ashamed of this than all the pedophilia and the subsequent cover ups.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 11:05:34 AM
Well, it's not exactly healing cripples, now is it? They exhumed a body and found part of it was not what they had expected and that's called a miracle. Better question is why did you expect something else. Dead bodies tend to do weird things as they break down. Back in the day, this would have been taken as a sign of witchcraft or vampirism on the part of the deceased and they'd burn it.

All of this is besides the point in that it makes me very glad to not be a catholic. Because if I was and made a mistake in being an important catholic, they'd cut up my body and display it in little glass cases. It's a ghoulish practice and they should be very ashamed of their religion because of it. More ashamed of this than all the pedophilia and the subsequent cover ups.

Humans are evil.  Look in the mirror before you look down upon others ;-)  Not science, just straw men, like I said.  If someone used a shotgun to hunt fish instead of birds, would you say he was a bit eccentric?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 05, 2021, 11:19:15 AM
Humans are evil.  Look in the mirror before you look down upon others ;-)  Not science, just straw men, like I said.  If someone used a shotgun to hunt fish instead of birds, would you say he was a bit eccentric?

What are you babbling about?

Who is this guy? I don't remember him from when I was posting more regularly but for some reason the forum is mostly him. Probably because he has less to do with his time, which is depressing considering how little I have to fill my time and he must have considerably less.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 11:43:35 AM
What are you babbling about?

Who is this guy? I don't remember him from when I was posting more regularly but for some reason the forum is mostly him. Probably because he has less to do with his time, which is depressing considering how little I have to fill my time and he must have considerably less.

Ad hominem?  How intellectual!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 05, 2021, 11:51:33 AM
Ad hominem?  How intellectual!

Son, I first started coming to this forum twelve years ago or so. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, you're in the wrong place. Mostly we're just bored and will get a cathartic release dumping on the theist who thought preaching to a bunch of atheists was a good idea.

Looking for intelligent discussion here is kind of like looking for a wife in a titty bar. It could happen, but that's not why people go into that establishment.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 12:10:09 PM
Son, I first started coming to this forum twelve years ago or so. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, you're in the wrong place. Mostly we're just bored and will get a cathartic release dumping on the theist who thought preaching to a bunch of atheists was a good idea.

Looking for intelligent discussion here is kind of like looking for a wife in a titty bar. It could happen, but that's not why people go into that establishment.

Can't afford regular counseling?  Seriously, anyone who posts on the Internet are ... patients at an asylum.

OK to dismiss stupid people, theist or atheist.  We are all stable geniuses.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 05, 2021, 07:29:07 PM
Son, I first started coming to this forum twelve years ago or so. If you're looking for intelligent discussion, you're in the wrong place. Mostly we're just bored and will get a cathartic release dumping on the theist who thought preaching to a bunch of atheists was a good idea.

Looking for intelligent discussion here is kind of like looking for a wife in a titty bar. It could happen, but that's not why people go into that establishment.

This is sad. I would expect more from the go-to Secular Web discussion board.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 05, 2021, 09:16:02 PM
This is sad. I would expect more from the go-to Secular Web discussion board.

There are people who post once a year, and think they are Boss ;-)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on January 05, 2021, 09:41:41 PM
And there are people who spew crap multiple times every day and think they're Hoss.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 06, 2021, 01:00:16 AM
This is sad. I would expect more from the go-to Secular Web discussion board.
You came here asking about a horcrux, buddy. You get what you deserve.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Baruch on January 06, 2021, 10:02:40 AM
And there are people who spew crap multiple times every day and think they're Hoss.

Better horse's front than horse's behind - Confucius Institute
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 08, 2021, 02:55:50 AM
You came here asking about a horcrux, buddy. You get what you deserve.

I am not getting the joke, aside from the *obvious* Harry Potter reference.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 08, 2021, 03:19:35 AM
This is sad. I would expect more from the go-to Secular Web discussion board.

I am not getting the joke, aside from the *obvious* Harry Potter reference.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 08, 2021, 05:51:09 AM
EXPLAIN IT BETTER.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on January 08, 2021, 06:42:49 AM
EXPLAIN IT BETTER.
You offer nothing new. Nothing. And you act like your presenting some type of “hidden treasure of knowledge” when in fact your simply gushing over the same nonsense we have heard all our lives. And you want us to spend time arguing against stupidity? No. Instead you will get ridicule, jokes (albeit some bad ones) and derision. That’s your issue, not ours. You want someone to listen to your gibberish? Go to one of the thousands of sites where ignorance and stupidity is hailed as intelligence.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 08, 2021, 07:26:48 AM
I have an empty 5 gallon bucket out in the yard. Right now it holds all the valid evidence for any god or religious claim. From Isis to the god of the Jews, from Buddha  to Thor. Over 6,000 years of claims and still no evidence. Zero, Nada, Zilch. No scientific papers, no Noble prize, no dead people rising from the grave. Just a plastic bucket with some nitrogen gas, some O2, and a little bit of sand.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 08, 2021, 11:09:03 AM
I am not getting the joke, aside from the *obvious* Harry Potter reference.

We don't care about your wizards, man. No one has studied this phenomenon because it is uninteresting. We have better shit to do.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 10, 2021, 03:00:07 AM
We don't care about your wizards, man. No one has studied this phenomenon because it is uninteresting. We have better shit to do.

Just because it's uninteresting doesn't mean it's not valid, or untrue. By that rationale, God exists because that's the cooler thing. Unless you don't agree that an all-loving, omnipotent, benevolent Creator God is better than none at all. Which is feasibly, I guess, but has nothing FOR it. Skeptics should debate all issues. We act by reason and logic, not by emotion.

This post of yours was just stupid.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 10, 2021, 05:52:51 AM
Just because it's uninteresting doesn't mean it's not valid, or untrue.
You have that backwards. It is uninteresting because it's not valid.  Not that they aren't interesting as curious fabrications.

edit:  Retracted an incorrect statement of my own.

Skeptics should debate all issues.
We are debating your issues right now.  Consider them shredded and discarded, but don't take it personally.  They were shredded long ago many times in this exact debate by many others with those like yourself who thought they had a brand new idea.  We have accommodated you.  The debate should be over now, because there is no more to say. You want to continue, but there is no more blood in the turnip.

We act by reason and logic, not by emotion.
False!  Emotion plays a huge role in human actions, and we are becoming more an more aware of this as neuro scientists and psychologists study human behavior.  Reason and logic are not the human default, but they can be nurtured.

This post of yours was just stupid.
Well, that's kind of interesting in a curious sort of way.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 13, 2021, 02:15:26 AM
False!  Emotion plays a huge role in human actions, and we are becoming more an more aware of this as neuro scientists and psychologists study human behavior.  Reason and logic are not the human default, but they can be nurtured.

If you had read that properly in context, you would see that I was saying that *skeptics* act (or at least should act) by reason and logic, not people in general. That would be a phenomenally stupid statement.

Regardless...yeah, I think this thread has run its course now. Almost everyone gave their viewpoints, and for me that's enough. I have not even read some of the latest longer replies, simply to pure laziness/lack of time. I will continue to engage new replies, however, and if I happen to see something interesting as I read further, I will comment on it, sure.

But the mods have my permission to lock the thread if it's bothering the community!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 14, 2021, 03:52:27 AM
You offer nothing new. Nothing. And you act like your presenting some type of “hidden treasure of knowledge” when in fact your simply gushing over the same nonsense we have heard all our lives. And you want us to spend time arguing against stupidity? No. Instead you will get ridicule, jokes (albeit some bad ones) and derision. That’s your issue, not ours. You want someone to listen to your gibberish? Go to one of the thousands of sites where ignorance and stupidity is hailed as intelligence.

And you should go to some website where proper reading comprehension is heavily frowned upon.

P.S.: Just saw this excuse for an answer.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 14, 2021, 08:08:20 AM
All over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.) It is a glorious unexplainable miracle of transformation whereby the cracker still manages to look like a cracker, however the  disgusting act of cannibalism is real and somehow brings one into the heaven that the first Christians 'borrowed' from the ancient Iranians.

My reaction upon being 'taught' this. "Sorry, you seem to have taken me for a fucking idiot". It is so easy. I only need Ockham's razor and consider the history of lies that the church has admitted to. Anyways if you kill a lamb and then get to eat it you, have not really sacrificed anything. Ancient nonsense to win over the pagans. God really does not have good magic. I have seen much better in Vegas.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on January 14, 2021, 11:33:35 AM
Yeah, I see better magic on Fool Us. "God" is just a sound people make when they really mean "I have no idea."
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 14, 2021, 02:27:38 PM
As far as I understand they are completely fine with that ritual...so I'm thinking maybe we should tell the myths about how the heathens drugged -as sober not knocked out- castrated and sacrificed and then ate their kings flesh yearly along with other animals AND that their tradition is actually a remnant of that. :lol:

I could draw them 'the ancient crosses' they were sacrificed on if they like, because they are actually certain kind if trees bent backwards, where those men -kings- are tied on in horrible ways. I forgot...probably blocked a lot of details. There is a reason why a certain style of tying is so ancient and horrifying but I couldn't find it in Eng. There is a word but when you look that up it says hogtie and although the term is a one on one translation it is not that.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on January 14, 2021, 04:24:34 PM
Trussed up, maybe?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 15, 2021, 01:17:03 PM
Skeptics should debate all issues.
Go fuck yourself.

You tell me what to do. I tell you what to do. I'd say we're even.

When you do what I told you to do, I'll consider doing what you told me to do.

Until then, I won't even consider it.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2021, 03:38:39 AM
Paolo, see. You have given the right to say those things to people yourself with your attitude. You have been given more than enough for an invalid inquiry. You are not engaging with anything else and just post here once in couple of days to tell people off. At least, that's what you think you do.

Infact, this thread is some sort of Jerry day care. You are not here as an adult, a possible member. You are here because mods let you. It's not a territory to defend.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 16, 2021, 06:20:49 AM
Trussed up, maybe?

Yeah...but in a pretty bad position.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on January 19, 2021, 05:55:45 PM
All over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.) It is a glorious unexplainable miracle of transformation whereby the cracker still manages to look like a cracker, however the  disgusting act of cannibalism is real and somehow brings one into the heaven that the first Christians 'borrowed' from the ancient Iranians.

My reaction upon being 'taught' this. "Sorry, you seem to have taken me for a fucking idiot". It is so easy. I only need Ockham's razor and consider the history of lies that the church has admitted to. Anyways if you kill a lamb and then get to eat it you, have not really sacrificed anything. Ancient nonsense to win over the pagans. God really does not have good magic. I have seen much better in Vegas.

(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/76/86/27/768627f6782208c5fce928bb5883552a.jpg)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 20, 2021, 03:22:31 AM
Marginally related to this topic:

Quote
"If you were to go back just two hundred years and tell people what we knew, from the origins of the universe to the molecular basis of life, and how weird and unintuitive nature is at the atomic scale, they would think we were crazy. But if you showed them what we have created with that knowledge, they would think we were magicians.” —Venki Ramakrishnan, winner of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry
I just stumbled on this testimonial to a book called Ten Keys to Reality, and I thought it was worth posting.  There may be more of what we loosely call "magic" in scientific knowledge than there is in the Bible; Well, for many of us anyway.  And there's still enough left unexplained that we can let our imaginations wander and wonder.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 20, 2021, 05:45:25 PM
Go fuck yourself.

You tell me what to do. I tell you what to do. I'd say we're even.

When you do what I told you to do, I'll consider doing what you told me to do.

Until then, I won't even consider it.

In addition to this being manifestly unfair, I told you "what to do" FIRST, you moron!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 20, 2021, 05:50:16 PM
Paolo, see. You have given the right to say those things to people yourself with your attitude. You have been given more than enough for an invalid inquiry. You are not engaging with anything else and just post here once in couple of days to tell people off. At least, that's what you think you do.

Didn't I engage way too much already? Read again my very detailed replies. But apparently, I also have "better shit to do", as one of you put it. Sorry about that.

Infact, this thread is some sort of Jerry day care. You are not here as an adult, a possible member. You are here because mods let you. It's not a territory to defend.

The fuck? I would call you an Asperger-ridden, autistic lame fucking moron of a prick, but I would not go down to YOUR level, buddy!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 21, 2021, 06:16:07 AM
All over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.)

You fucking kidding? Please back up more properly that assertion, because it goes against everything I've read in 10+ years of studying history and religion (and history of religions!) as a hobby. A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.

Cassia, please.

Anyways if you kill a lamb and then get to eat it you, have not really sacrificed anything. Ancient nonsense to win over the pagans. God really does not have good magic. I have seen much better in Vegas.

What the fuck?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 21, 2021, 06:39:00 AM
(https://media.tenor.com/images/fe3ddc12cf123622db21cf42910ccb9e/tenor.gif)

Jupiter's cock is the best historical evidence you have. And that's an overgrown cunt. Juno's cunt.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 21, 2021, 07:23:42 AM
There is no physical or archaeological evidence for Jesus. There are obvious attempts at faking physical evidence, such as the shroud of Turin. The sources for a historical Jesus are mainly Christian writings. This is problematic. Writings by non Christians on Jesus just report what Christians were saying and some of that has been forged. Paul's letters follow the prototype of mythical savior gods that were popular at the time. The details on Jesus's daily life become more" fleshed out" only decades after he supposedly lived. This is highly unusual.

Dr. Richard Carrier uses Bayesian analysis and that puts the probability of historical Jesus at 1/3. As time goes on Jesus may go the way of fictional Moses as more secular scholars continue research.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 21, 2021, 08:47:26 AM
Quote from: Cassia
Quote
All over the world each day, ordained male priests chant a magic spell over a cracker. Council after council have compiled volumes of elegant prose about how this baked flour and wine are actually the flesh and blood of a dead man (who may have not even existed.)

You fucking kidding? Please back up more properly that assertion, because it goes against everything I've read in 10+ years of studying history and religion (and history of religions!) as a hobby. A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.
I think Cassia's point was that wine and crackers don't trans-mutate into blood and flesh.  You avoided the main point, and chose to argue that Jesus was a real person, (but maybe not named Jesus and who wasn't the son of God, and performed no miracles). 

But that misses an important point too.  When Priests around the world chant magic words to change crackers into the body of Jesus, they are not talking about some bloke in Mexico today or some forgotten bloke from two thousand years ago who may or may not have existed.  They are changing crackers into a very specific Jesus of the Bible, who they claim existed, was the son of God, and performed miracles.

Jesus' existence is frequently debated, but no one knows that the Jesus of the Bible existed.  That he was based on an ordinary man, possibly one of many street preacher's is an apologetic used by some scholars that shoots itself in the foot, because that could not be the Miracle Jesus defined in the Bible.  It's just one explanation for the origins of a legend, but not a valid claim, because there are other explanations like shear fabrication that are just as reasonable. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 21, 2021, 09:08:50 AM
A man who we would call today ''Jesus Christ'' (maybe that wasn't his exact name, though) certainly was born and existed around the time of the 1st century, as far as History is concerned. Whether or not he was ''the Son of God'' or had supernatural powers or anything of this sort is an entirely different matter.
I must respectfully disagree.  Jesus was the name of a fictional man, who has been labeled the Son of God by the propagandists of 2000 years ago.  'Christ' is a title, not a name--there were many who were a Christ.  There is no proof that such a man existed.  If you think there is, could you share some of it?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 21, 2021, 09:18:39 AM
He doesn't know and don't want to learn what evidence is. (Let alone historical evidence.) That's the knowledge he needs which he deliberately rejects. I'm not drunk [I liked the gif, think ice tea] I wasn't being uncouth, I was trying to explain it 'better' and 'directly' as he wishes. That's what it is in a mythical nutshell.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on January 21, 2021, 02:48:24 PM
Literally anyone: *expresses basic skepticism*
This evangelist:  "the fuck!?!?!!"

I could watch this all day.  It's like Shyamalan's The Village except with skepticism instead of technology.   :popcorn:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on January 21, 2021, 05:54:29 PM
Simply said...a kook!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 21, 2021, 06:51:52 PM
Simply said...a kook!

What, because I have a different opinion than the atheist fucktards here? Where's the freethinking of the "free thinkers"? Seems you guys are skeptics only by name. True skepticism does not know this place.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 21, 2021, 08:02:36 PM
What, because I have a different opinion than the atheist fucktards here? Where's the freethinking of the "free thinkers"? Seems you guys are skeptics only by name. True skepticism does not know this place.
Okay.  Would you care to address my question to you?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 22, 2021, 01:37:48 AM
Okay.  Would you care to address my question to you?

Yeah, RIGHT NOW I am too busy watching/fapping to some disgusting domestic online porn, but probably tomorrow I will give you your thoughtful, detailed, heavily-argumented, long-awaited glorious answer and refutation. Just wait like the little good Fundamentalist Atheist that you and your buddies are.  :wink2:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mr.Obvious on January 22, 2021, 05:36:23 AM
Happy fapping, Paolo.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on January 22, 2021, 07:51:35 AM
Yeah, RIGHT NOW I am too busy watching/fapping to some disgusting domestic online porn, but probably tomorrow I will give you your thoughtful, detailed, heavily-argumented, long-awaited glorious answer and refutation. Just wait like the little good Fundamentalist Atheist that you and your buddies are.  :wink2:
Tsk tsk....wasting of the seed is one of gods “abominations”...but hey...so called Christians never really follow the babble anyhoo.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 22, 2021, 08:13:36 AM
Tsk tsk....wasting of the seed is one of gods “abominations”...but hey...so called Christians never really follow the babble anyhoo.

I am not Christian anymore, so this point is moot (although I was born and raised Catholic, hence it's one of the branches of Christendom that I am most fond of).
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 22, 2021, 09:13:27 AM
I am not Christian anymore, so this point is moot (although I was born and raised Catholic, hence it's one of the branches of Christendom that I am most fond of).
I also hold a certain fondness for Catholicism. I enjoyed the show and the ceremony of being in an old Cathedral. Even managed to preserve some fine memories..because at the time is was all I had to work with. Taught me that I am different that most.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 22, 2021, 11:27:36 AM
What, because I have a different opinion than the atheist fucktards here? Where's the freethinking of the "free thinkers"? Seems you guys are skeptics only by name. True skepticism does not know this place.

Skepticism isn't answering every kooky claim that comes across our path. That is very close to the Gish gallup, a dishonest formal debate technique where you make as many claims as you can as quickly as possible that it is impossible for your opponent to answer all of them, which can cause one to win a debate, but it is totally gaming the system without having a strong argument.

That's basically what we have here. You brought this "miracle" and most of us have never heard of it. We have no answer for this claim and we do not have to. Most of us have no expertise in the decomposition of the human body. Personally, I wish to know as little as possible about that by the time it's my turn to do it. We cannot answer this claim and it is so uncompelling, we do not want to. And we do not have to. We have better things to do. Which is literally anything else. This doesn't make us not skeptics because we still don't believe you. We just don't need to answer every kooky claim.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 22, 2021, 11:40:53 AM
Skepticism isn't answering every kooky claim that comes across our path. That is very close to the Gish gallup, a dishonest formal debate technique where you make as many claims as you can as quickly as possible that it is impossible for your opponent to answer all of them, which can cause one to win a debate, but it is totally gaming the system without having a strong argument.

That's basically what we have here. You brought this "miracle" and most of us have never heard of it. We have no answer for this claim and we do not have to. Most of us have no expertise in the decomposition of the human body. Personally, I wish to know as little as possible about that by the time it's my turn to do it. We cannot answer this claim and it is so uncompelling, we do not want to. And we do not have to. We have better things to do. Which is literally anything else. This doesn't make us not skeptics because we still don't believe you. We just don't need to answer every kooky claim.
To paraphrase, skeptics try to keep open minds, but not so open that their brains fall out.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 22, 2021, 03:06:42 PM
To me it really doesn't matter if the christ/man corporally existed or not. Even if he did exist and upon his death on a cross, if the sun did in fact go dark and corpses of 'saints' emerged from the ground (without any independent mention/recording of these incredulous events) am I supposed to assume now there is a specific god? Miracles are not very scientific. Maybe Satan did all of that or Thor, just to fuck with us....who's to know?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 23, 2021, 04:19:54 AM
We have better things to do.

That is literally the LAMEST ''argument'' one could possibly give. ''I will not engage you, because I will have sex with my girlfriend tonight'' (just an example, by the way). How about actually PROVING that I am wrong or incorrect? What does it MATTER to the discussion that you have better things to do? Maybe you should not have signed up for a debate forum in the first place, then? Also, can we say non-sequitur?

Yeah, you are a pseudo-skeptic.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 23, 2021, 04:28:06 AM
Addendum: just imagine if the editors of, say, Talk.Origins had said: ''We won't refute any of these creationist arguments, we will go to the South Beach for the weekend''; and thus there would be no website and no one could use TO as a resource for debunking creationist garbage. What a waste would that have been for the skeptical community. Yet it is this stupidity that you claim is an honest intellectual stance.                 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 23, 2021, 08:17:49 AM
Paolo, you keep saying this forum is only full of unskepitical skeptics who don't want to engage you in fruitful dialogue--yet you refuse to engage in a discussion about the historicity of jesus.  Are you ever going to attempt an answer to my question????
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 23, 2021, 08:35:10 AM
Entropy:  the measure of disorganization of theist logic as it breaks down during a debate.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 23, 2021, 02:01:10 PM
How about actually PROVING that I am wrong or incorrect?

No. You and your evidence do not deserve it.

Quote
What does it MATTER to the discussion that you have better things to do?

That the topic you have presented is not worth discussing.

We can't discuss much, anyway, because the horcrux is under glass in Italy and there's a pandemic going on. What do you expect anyone on a random internet forum to say or do? We've never heard of thing before. We have no opinion other than as miracles go, it's pretty stupid and disgusting. What does it prove? God's infinite love that he let's one small part of a man to not decompose quite right?

You know what, I lost my keys earlier this week and it turns out they were in my left pocket instead of my right pocket and that's a miracle. Prove me wrong.

That's what you sound like.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 23, 2021, 02:03:36 PM
Addendum: just imagine if the editors of, say, Talk.Origins ...       

I do not know or care what that is. They can do what they wish.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 24, 2021, 07:15:51 AM
@the_antithesis Since you don't know or care about anything pertaining to these topics, do you even have any reason to ''adhere'' to an ideology like atheism? Could you please list the reasons for your position? Have you done ANY reading whatsoever?

Not that I even care, of course!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 08:40:22 AM
@the_antithesis Since you don't know or care about anything pertaining to these topics, do you even have any reason to ''adhere'' to an ideology like atheism? Could you please list the reasons for your position? Have you done ANY reading whatsoever?

Not that I even care, of course!
It has been said the third time is a charm.  So, for the 3rd time--I say Jesus was/is fictional.  You say he was real--Why?

And atheism is not an 'ideology', but the lack of such.  All my atheism indicates is that I think all gods are fictional.  All gods.  That's it.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 24, 2021, 09:42:39 AM
It has been said the third time is a charm.  So, for the 3rd time--I say Jesus was/is fictional.  You say he was real--Why?

And atheism is not an 'ideology', but the lack of such.  All my atheism indicates is that I think all gods are fictional.  All gods.  That's it.
Yep, atheism is an unfortunate term coined only because of preconditioning toward religion. There is no '-ism' to unbelief.  Nonbelief in gods is just a side effect that occurs when one operates on facts. And flipping the coin, there is no "believing" in evolution. It is the only fact-based (due to massive cross-discipline body of evidence) proposition that explains biodiversity. Even highly "learned" apologists for religion rarely understand these important distinctions.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on January 24, 2021, 11:52:58 AM
Could you please list the reasons for your position?

What's a god?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on January 24, 2021, 02:20:59 PM
ideology like atheism
Oh really?  Care to tell us what atheists believe?

(Take care not to ascribe to atheists beliefs that they might not necessarily have in common)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on January 24, 2021, 08:03:07 PM
It has been said the third time is a charm.  So, for the 3rd time--I say Jesus was/is fictional.  You say he was real--Why?

And atheism is not an 'ideology', but the lack of such.  All my atheism indicates is that I think all gods are fictional.  All gods.  That's it.

Sorry, Mike Cl, it's been busy here for me, so honestly, I have taken the easy way out and when I read the replies, I only answer the easiest ones.  :rotflmao:

So now that I feel like it, let's proceed to your answer!

You say he was real--Why?

It is my personal position and opinion (which I believe is backed up by [historical] evidence) that an itinerant, (street?) preacher, who was (or became to be) known by the name of Jesus/Yeshua/whatever, lived around the 1st century, had some followers, and caused quite heavy political and social turmoil around that time; for that reason, he was cruficied by the Roman Empire (I haven't done research on whether, or to what extent, the Jews were involved, to be honest) and died. His followers then started the early Christian communities, which around three centuries later would become the dominant religion in the Graeco-Roman world. That's basically it.

I can go into more detail if you want to, but even a source as secular and arguably 'biased' as Wikipedia accepts that 'Jesus' was a real historical figure. It's time for citations!  :2thumbs:

''Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, although the quest for the historical Jesus has yielded some uncertainty on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the Jesus portrayed in the Bible reflects the historical Jesus, as the only records of Jesus' life are contained in the Gospels. Jesus was a Galilean Jew, who was baptized by John the Baptist and began his own ministry. He preached orally and was often referred to as "rabbi". Jesus debated with fellow Jews on how to best follow God, engaged in healings, taught in parables and gathered followers. He was arrested and tried by the Jewish authorities, turned over to the Roman government, and crucified on the order of Pontius Pilate, the Roman prefect. After his death, his followers believed he rose from the dead, and the community they formed eventually became the early Church''.

Notice that this states as historical facts even more details than I said in my first paragraph. This very article hyperlinks to another page, where we read:

'The historicity of Jesus relates to whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. Virtually all scholars who have investigated the history of the Christian movement find that the historicity of Jesus is effectively certain, and standard historical criteria have aided in reconstructing his life''.

The contrary historical/scientific hypothesis, that of Jesus inexistence as a person, or as a myth, is unsurprisingly widely discarded:

''Scholars differ on the beliefs and teachings of Jesus as well as the accuracy of the details of his life that have been described in the gospels, but virtually all scholars support the historicity of Jesus and reject the Christ myth theory that Jesus never existed''.

The issue is so controversial that a leading skeptic and one of the most vociferous proponents of this 'theory', the late G. A. Wells, was forced to concede late in his life:

''Among these scholars was G.A Wells, a well-known mythicist who changed his mind and ultimately believed in a minimal historical Jesus''.

Even Robert M. Price, who still is a ''mythicist'' to THIS VERY DAY, agrees that the position has problems, and that it is not accepted by most historians: ''In ''Jesus at the Vanishing Point'', Price acknowledges that he stands against the majority view of scholars, but cautions against attempting to settle the issue by appeal to the majority''. Which, strictly speaking, is true, but it would be akin to saying Young Earth Creationism is even a remotely plausible hypothesis. Most atheists I know would say no such thing. Because there is massive evidence for modern evolutionary theory, as there is arguably massive evidence for a historical Jesus (I know there is a difference between hard/physical sciences and historical sciences, but that's not the point).

Back to Price, even he admits that at the very best scenario, one is left in 'complete agnosticism': ''According to Price, if critical methodology [a textual/historical analysis method] is applied with ruthless consistency, one is left in complete agnosticism regarding Jesus's historicity''. Certainly not a certain ''he did not exist'', as you claim.

Finally, most mythicists are generally quite poor writers, held in little intellectual and/or academic steem: the late Acharya S, Timothy Freke, Peter Gandy, etc. Even Richard Carrier, who is at least mildly competent in other areas, and was briefly mentioned here by Cassia, is criticized where the historicity of Jesus is concerned: ''He [Carrier] is a prominent advocate of the theory that Jesus did not exist, which he has argued in a number of his works. Carrier's methodology and conclusions in this field have proven controversial and unconvincing to specialists, and he and his theories are often identified as "fringe".

So, in short, Christ-myth is akin to Flath Earth, anti-vaccine movement, and other such nonsense.

There you go. I admit it is not too long, but it is a start nonetheless. I wasted like 3 hours to type and format all this -- so I hope it proves useful!

Now, it's your turn, Mike. I hope you will have the same fun as I had!  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 09:03:51 PM
Well, Paolo, you caught me on football playoff Sunday.  So, give me some time to answer.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 24, 2021, 09:14:15 PM
Here is a sort of lazy offering:

Did historical Jesus really exist? The evidence just doesn’t add up.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/18/did-historical-jesus-exist-the-traditional-evidence-doesnt-hold-up/

This is a brief article from the Washington Post and it summarizes most of what I think.  It is a good, quick intro, anyway.  I just don't see any evidence offered for Jesus being an actual person, except from within the christian church--there is no other evidence from other sources.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 02:17:59 AM
I just don't see any evidence offered for Jesus being an actual person, except from within the christian church--there is no other evidence from other sources.
There is no credible evidence.  Notice throughout Paolo's explanation that "all religious scholars agree that a historical Jesus existed based on evidence," but nowhere does it say what the evidence is.  Big Red Flag there.  First, when someone or even a group claims there is evidence, but fails to produce it, that says nothing of consequence (see Trump and his lawyers vs. the US Courts). 

Second, that "all religious scholars agree on the historical authenticity of Jesus" is patently false.  They don't, and even wiki immediately contradicts its own claim by naming a couple that don't. 

Third, even if wiki gave a list of all the religious scholars and their opinions, all you have at best is a majority of consensus based on the fallacy of numbers, just as was true in the flat earth, the age of the earth, creation, blood letting, and an earth-centrist universe, and all of those beliefs changed with time, without actual evidence to support them, and they all called upon religious beliefs for support, with the exception of blood letting.  Religion is a very powerful method of convincing great numbers of lay people, clergy, and religious scholars.  And medical science makes the same mistakes, although resets itself much faster.

The only truly prudent intellectual position on Jesus is "We can believe, but we don't know," and I would argue that point with both theists and atheists who claim they have actual knowledge.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 25, 2021, 07:26:19 AM
....The only truly prudent intellectual position on Jesus is "We can believe, but we don't know," and I would argue that point with both theists and atheists who claim they have actual knowledge.
Of course the believers in a historical Jesus would scoff at the historical existence of Hindu gods, but millions of Hindi speakers have all sorts of "evidence".
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 08:21:32 AM
Of course the believers in a historical Jesus would scoff at the historical existence of Hindu gods, but millions of Hindi speakers have all sorts of "evidence".
Christians seem to turn into logical skeptics at the drop of a hat when any of the other gods come up. No, I'll take that back.  They are most likely firmly anti-Thorist, anti-Vishnu, or anti-whatever and claim they know those others aren't real.  I listened to a radio preacher giving a sermon while I was driving, and the preacher told this story about a supposed debate he had with a Muslim Cleric, where the Muslim said they both worshiped the same god, but the Christian claimed, "We certainly do not worship the same God!"  In writing, I can't achieve the same depth of haughty disdain in the Christian's voice over what he must have taken as the ultimate insult.

A bit off topic, but this one is fun.  I listened to an NPR interview with this apparently famous fundamentalist preacher.  I can't remember his name, but his claim to fame was that he was credited with organizing the original religious right.  He was talking about his ministry, and he related that one time he was at some international conference on world religions attended by some of the global heavy hitters, one of which was the Dali Lama.  So the Dali walked by with this large entourage, kind of like the president and the secret service, and the preacher cornered one of the Lama's secretaries and told him he wanted to make an appointment with the Dali Lama so that he could tell him about Jesus Christ.  Well, it appears that the Dali's schedule was full for the next month or two, so he never got to set the Dali Lama straight.  I was laughing so hard I almost lost control of my car.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 08:59:35 AM
Back to the question of Jesus' existence.  While we go on debating the question, what difference would it make if some Jewish street preacher named Jesus, but without all the bells and whistles of the Bible Jesus, actually existed?  Would that make the Gospels any more credible?  No, it would just help explain the origin of an obvious myth.  Religious scholars should stop advancing that apologetic, because it actually discredits the Gospels, and Christianity.

It seems to me that scholars need a Jesus, even if it's not the real Jesus.  And it doesn't really help their cause.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 25, 2021, 09:15:58 AM
Religious scholars themselves and their theological works is subject of anthropology. Like the medicine man of the Amazon tribe.

History as a disicipline uses those texts to figure out the way human thought develop in the past...not as some evidence for what happened or existed in the past.

For example, while seventeenth century historians created their kings' characters and raison d'etat histories, a lot of scholars of the time believed that history cannot be known and it is just story but nothing  else. They have used a kind of primitive 'scepticism' for lack of any other word, bordering paranoia. (Put a few smart men aside.) But then history E: as a discipline hasn't existed in seventeenth century to begin with. But they didn't know that did they? And they have produced tons of texts, inventing situations, context, the concept of context itself (after all if you are going to deny the existence of the accumulation of the past, you need to show it has no attachment to reality or too many to be true) coining words and making comparisons between situations. And these texts today has a whole different kind and level of historical value. But they are NOT historical evidence. 

Why seventeenth century example? Because it is a century that literacy relatively spread and the learned men then are some sort of a textual mind, if you will.

If you try to deal with any tradition before that, read folk tales and fairy tales. Check military and trade, art commision inventories. Other than that it is what the preacher preaches. Even the political and the law. But of course modern historians have drawn the basic lines.


You can only have an impression of the flow of human history for the specific information you are after. History is not linear. Calendars, main cults.

Michalengelo's Moses have horns because clan chefs used to wear stag horns as a headwear. He is the symbol of thousands of men, not one. Like the symbol people call Joshua is.
 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
When I first started my personal search for the historical Jesus, I was what is called an agnostic on the subject.  I did not know there was enough evidence for either side--so I began looking and studying.  Richard Carrier is the one that presents what is closest to what I think.  I am now persuaded with the lack of evidence is actually evidence of non-existence, thought.  Jesus is said to have existed in the 1st cent.  What surprised me was the number of writers/historians that were alive and writing in that time frame.  (I remember reading that a recent researcher wrote a book on that subject and came up with at least 120 authors writing in that time.)  Not one mentioned Jesus.  Not ONE!  Jesus is claimed to be, and is widely believed, to be the son of god; he is the scapegoat for all of human sins.  The redeemer!  The producer of miracles or all sorts.  Yet not one author tells of any of his life nor deeds.  That simply cannot be for the pivotal, singular point in the history of mankind.  There must be evidence of his existence all over the place!  God literally moved heaven and earth to make his point and present his son.  But, no, no evidence.  Richard Carrier in his book--On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt--Makes 48 points of fact that forms his foundation to his argument; a couple of years ago, I presented each point, one at a time, on this forum and had a discussion of each point. His book is the clearest presentation of why there is a huge amount of doubt about Jesus' actual life.  It is 800 pages and is quite heavily footnoted and documented--but for me was a quick read.

Bible scholars.  Who are they?  Mostly seminary trained, whose goal is the continue the myth.  Why?--money.  There is a huge profit, both wealth and power wise.  It's like claiming all flat-earth scholars agree the earth is flat.  So what?  I don't trust that bible scholars will give me the truth--only the truth as they see it or want it to be.  Carrier, for my money, is the closest we have come to independent scholarly work--he claims to have no dog in this fight, and simply wanted to know the facts.   

Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.  I mean if one could go to Asia or South America, or Sweden, or Russia, or the Pacific Islands, or New Zealand and find bible dating from the same time frame, that would seem to be proof that the bible would be true.  Or if it was shown that Jesus visited those same areas, that would be further proof of his existence.  But that is not even close to being true.  One tiny area of the world??? For me it is clear this is the folklore of one small group of people; and it is clear this particular myth was created from an amalgam of the other myths swirling around in that area at that time. 

I could go on, Paolo, but I will await your response.   
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:15:02 AM
This is a post I made on Sept. 9, 2014:
An earlier book to consider looking into is The Jesus Puzzle, but Earl Doherty.  This was published in the early 2000's and was a great find for me then.  This is what Carrier had to say about it:

Summary of Argument and Overall Conclusion

Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.


This work shows clearly that a real flesh and blood Jesus was not needed to create "christianity".  Jesus was added later as he was needed and the farther away from the early christian groups we go in history, the more history of Jesus was added.  What was created was not Jesusanity, but Christianity; Christ is a title, not a last name.  The mythical Jesus did not have the name Mr. Jesus Christ (no middle initial either--although I like to add an H. to it or simply say 'Jesus fucking Christ'--especially when I hit my thumb with a hammer.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
Religious scholars themselves and their theological works is subject of anthropology. Like the medicine man of the Amazon tribe.

History as a disicipline uses those texts to figure out the way human thought develop in the past...not as some evidence for what happened or existed in the past.
This seems important.  The study of Jesus and the study of the Bible gives us insight into how people processed their environment at the time.  We get to know them through their story telling.  We may not be able to know the characters of their stories, but we can understand the story tellers better.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 25, 2021, 11:18:13 AM
... We may not be able to know the characters of their stories, but we can understand the story tellers better.

Yes. More than that, not just that we don't need to, modern 'scientific' history does not accept that line of inquiry as a valid one.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on January 25, 2021, 11:29:05 AM
Nice summary, Mike Cl....
-I came to a similar conclusion...The man went completely unnoticed by the empire and I find that highly unlikely. The need to make him real later was real however. The modus operandi of the early Christian was to create fictional gospels. If Constantine I hadn't joined the cult and kicked off a series of Councils to decide what the religion should be and do, things would be very different today.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on January 25, 2021, 11:29:15 AM
When I first started my personal search for the historical Jesus, I was what is called an agnostic on the subject.  I did not know there was enough evidence for either side--so I began looking and studying.  Richard Carrier is the one that presents what is closest to what I think.  I am now persuaded with the lack of evidence is actually evidence of non-existence
I'm still agnostic on this, but I agree that the lack of evidence is a very compelling argument for non-existence.  More compelling that the evidence for.

Bible scholars.  Who are they?  Mostly seminary trained, whose goal is the continue the myth.  Why?--money.  There is a huge profit, both wealth and power wise.  It's like claiming all flat-earth scholars agree the earth is flat.  So what?  I don't trust that bible scholars will give me the truth--only the truth as they see it or want it to be.  Carrier, for my money, is the closest we have come to independent scholarly work--he claims to have no dog in this fight, and simply wanted to know the facts.
Religious scholarship, is heavily weighted with religious men, quite often Christian.  That they agree Jesus was real should not be a surprise.

Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.   
I have wondered about this a lot, too.  It doesn't seem to trouble Christians at all, but it doesn't seem like the best way for a god to get his message to the people.  For Christians, the fact that it worked seems to be evidence of its truth, but there's a non sequitur in that.  Is the book of Mormon a truth because most of Utah believes it?

Using Shoe's lessons in anthropology, the success of these religions tell us more about the people who covet them than they do about actual truth.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on January 25, 2021, 11:37:03 AM
... Using Shoe's lessons in anthropology, the success of these religions tell us more about the people who covet them than they do about actual truth.

That's exactly what that Shoe person means, sir.  :wineglass:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: PickelledEggs on January 26, 2021, 09:41:38 PM
this is where my discord bot would have came in handy. I would be able to do "!noevidence" and my Hitchbot would say "That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 12:52:17 PM
Well, Paolo, you are one lively conversationalist, aren't you.  I will assume your silence indicates you have no real evidence for the historicity of your favorite god/man, Jesus H. Christ.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 02, 2021, 01:09:50 PM
Maybe he just wanted to talk.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 02, 2021, 01:33:30 PM
Well, Paolo, you are one lively conversationalist, aren't you.  I will assume your silence indicates you have no real evidence for the historicity of your favorite god/man, Jesus H. Christ.

Calm down, pal. I have just read your two posts. Now I have to think about them, before giving my reply.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 01:51:05 PM
Okay, Paolo, I await with baited breath.................
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 01:53:12 PM
My bad--that should be bated, not 'baited'.  I'm not fishing here......................well, maybe, sort of.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 02, 2021, 02:29:37 PM
When I first started my personal search for the historical Jesus, I was what is called an agnostic on the subject.  I did not know there was enough evidence for either side--so I began looking and studying.  Richard Carrier is the one that presents what is closest to what I think.  I am now persuaded with the lack of evidence is actually evidence of non-existence, thought.  Jesus is said to have existed in the 1st cent.  What surprised me was the number of writers/historians that were alive and writing in that time frame.  (I remember reading that a recent researcher wrote a book on that subject and came up with at least 120 authors writing in that time.)  Not one mentioned Jesus.  Not ONE!

That is just false. There are mentions of Jesus by secular and non-Christian writers. To name just a few: Josephus, Lucian, Mara bar-Serapion, Pliny, Seutonius, Tacitus, The Talmud authors, Thallus. Want to discuss any of those in particular?

Jesus is claimed to be, and is widely believed, to be the son of god; he is the scapegoat for all of human sins.  The redeemer!  The producer of miracles or all sorts.  Yet not one author tells of any of his life nor deeds.  That simply cannot be for the pivotal, singular point in the history of mankind.  There must be evidence of his existence all over the place!  God literally moved heaven and earth to make his point and present his son.  But, no, no evidence.

But what sort of evidence do you want? 

Bible scholars.  Who are they?  Mostly seminary trained, whose goal is the continue the myth.  Why?--money.  There is a huge profit, both wealth and power wise.  It's like claiming all flat-earth scholars agree the earth is flat.  So what?  I don't trust that bible scholars will give me the truth--only the truth as they see it or want it to be.  Carrier, for my money, is the closest we have come to independent scholarly work--he claims to have no dog in this fight, and simply wanted to know the facts.

You miss the point that many SECULAR historians and of ALL RELIGIOUS PERSUASIONS, from hindus to atheists, think that there is enough evidence to believe in a historical Jesus-- or at least as much evidence for it as for other historical figures whose existence we normally take for granted. But more on that later.

And what makes you think Carrier, who is an outspoken atheist, is truly 'neutral'?

Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.  I mean if one could go to Asia or South America, or Sweden, or Russia, or the Pacific Islands, or New Zealand and find bible dating from the same time frame, that would seem to be proof that the bible would be true.  Or if it was shown that Jesus visited those same areas, that would be further proof of his existence.  But that is not even close to being true.  One tiny area of the world??? For me it is clear this is the folklore of one small group of people; and it is clear this particular myth was created from an amalgam of the other myths swirling around in that area at that time.

Okay. Do you have any evidence for your copycat thesis? 

I could go on, Paolo, but I will await your response.


That's OK! I will be working on the second reply, which will probably be a bit longer, and a lot more complex!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 02, 2021, 02:41:21 PM
My bad--that should be bated, not 'baited'.  I'm not fishing here......................well, maybe, sort of.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0qGHiHHTkpA
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 06:45:38 PM
Paolo, if you want to spend the time, you can sift thru my posts and find a large number of posts that have dealt with this issue before.  But I will tackle your list one at a time.  The list of witnesses of Jesus you provided did not write anything while Jesus was alive.  Nor did Jesus ever write anything, nor did his 'disciples' nor anybody else during his lifetime.  For example, Philo, who was a prolific writer and alive from 20 bce to 50 ce, and who frequently traveled from Alexandria and Jerusalem, would have mentioned him, at least a little.  Not a whisper.

Josephus:

Jesus in Josephus
BY RICHARD CARRIER ON DECEMBER 21, 2012147 COMMENTS
Now that the world has ended, my peer reviewed article on Josephus just came out: “Origen, Eusebius, and the Accidental Interpolation in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200” in the Journal of Early Christian Studies 
(vol. 20, no. 4, Winter 2012), 
pp. 489-514.

The official description is:

Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to “Christ” in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus.

My proof of that is pretty conclusive. But this article also summarizes a sufficient case to reject the Testimonium Flavianum as well (the other, longer reference to Jesus in Josephus), in that case as a deliberate fabrication (see note 1, pp. 489-90, and discussion of the Arabic quotation on pp. 493-94). And I cite the leading scholarship on both. So it’s really a complete article on both references to Jesus in Josephus.

Further evidence that the longer reference is a Christian fabrication lies in an article I didn’t cite, however, but that is nevertheless required reading on the matter: G.J. Goldberg, “The Coincidences of the Testimonium of Josephus and the Emmaus Narrative of Luke,” in the Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha (vol. 13, 1995), pp. 59-77. Goldberg demonstrates nineteen unique correspondences between Luke’s Emmaus account and the Testimonium Flavianum, all nineteen in exactly the same order (with some order and word variations only within each item). There are some narrative differences (which are expected due to the contexts being different and as a result of common kinds of authorial embellishment), and there is a twentieth correspondence out of order (identifying Jesus as “the Christ”). But otherwise, the coincidences here are very improbable on any other hypothesis than dependence.

Goldberg also shows that the Testimonium contains vocabulary and phrasing that is particularly Christian (indeed, Lukan) and un-Josephan. He concludes that this means either a Christian wrote it or Josephus slavishly copied a Christian source, and contrary to what Goldberg concludes, the latter is wholly implausible (Josephus would treat such a source more critically, creatively, and informedly).

Remember, Josephus was born after Jesus died, so he could not be considered a contemporary. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:00:13 PM
Lucian,
He lived from 125-180.  Clearly not a contemporary. 

Lucian is not an independent witness to Jesus. Lucian of Samosata (c.125-180 CE), was a Greek satirist best known for his dialogues (Dialogues of the Gods, Dialogues of the Dead, The Sale of Lives) ridiculing Greek mythology and philosophy; he also authored a work entitled True History. McDowell cites the following statement by Lucian written around 170 CE:

... the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world.... Furthermore, their first lawgiver persuaded them that they were all brothers one of another after they have transgressed once for all by denying the Greek gods and by worshipping that crucified sophist himself and living under his laws.[144]

In a previous version of this essay, quoting Michael Grant, I questioned whether Lucian was concerned with historical accuracy.[145] I misinterpreted Grant; elsewhere Grant makes it clear that Lucian was concerned with historical accuracy. According to Grant, Lucian felt it important to separate instruction from entertainment.[146] Grant notes that Lucian felt a historian should be "stateless;" in other words, Lucian thought the historian should try to remain impartial when recording events concerning the historian's own nation.[147] Moreover, Lucian "denounced fraudulent biography" and said that "it was the sole duty of the historian to ... say exactly how things happened."[148]

Nevertheless, given that Lucian's statement was written near the end of the second century, it seems rather unlikely that he had independent sources of information concerning the historicity of Jesus. Lucian may have relied upon Christian sources, common knowledge, or even an earlier pagan reference (e.g., Tacitus); since Lucian does not specify his sources, we will never know. Just as is the case with Tacitus, it is quite plausible that Lucian would have simply accepted the Christian claim that their founder had been crucified. There is simply no evidence that Lucian ever doubted the historicity of Jesus. Therefore, Lucian's concern for historical accuracy is not even relevant as Lucian would have had no motive for investigating the matter.[149]

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:12:10 PM
Mara Bar-Serapion

Mara Bar-Serapion was a Syrian, but other than that nothing is known of his life. All we possess today are fragments of a letter he was writing to his son from prison, one of which says the following:

“What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burying Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise king? It was just after that that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: the Athenians died of hunger; the Samians were overwhelmed by the sea; the Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good; he lived on in the teaching of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good; he lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise king die for good; he lived on in the teaching which he had given.”

The second and third criteria both come into play here. First, it should be noted that the dating of this letter is very uncertain. Even the earliest estimates place it around 70 CE, over 40 years after Jesus’ death, while some historians have dated it well into the third century. Secondly, and far more importantly, the letter does not even mention Jesus by name – it only refers to a “wise king”, and does not mention any specific deeds or sayings of this individual. It could be referring to any of the messianic pretenders of the first century, or someone else entirely unknown to us. There is no way to tell. In fact, it seems less likely that Bar-Serapion meant Jesus than any other would-be messiah, since Jesus was killed by the Romans, not by the Jews. The fact that he does not even name this “wise king”, whereas he does name Socrates and Pythagoras, suggests that Bar-Serapion knew almost nothing about him. Therefore, as confirmation of the historicity of Jesus, his testimony is without merit.

It further supports this argument to note that Bar-Serapion is sloppy and careless with other historical details in this passage. Pythagoras, for example, apparently died in southern Italy, not Samos; the exact location and manner of his death vary depending on the telling (in Croton by political adversaries or in Metapontium by hunger strike), but no historical account puts his death in Samos, nor is there any record of a significant natural disaster there that might correspond to what Bar-Serapion mentions. Also, Socrates was executed several decades after the Great Plague of Athens, which seems to be what this passage is alluding to, obviously making it impossible that the plague could somehow have been divine retribution. Bar-Serapion’s inability to get known historical details right makes him far less trustworthy when it comes to disputed ones. (Thanks to EvanT for pointing this out.)

And again, not a contemporary of Jesus.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:14:56 PM
The Jewish Talmud

A compendium of Jewish oral law and rabbinical commentary still used by Orthodox Jews today to complement the Torah, the Talmud was entirely oral until it was codified and written down somewhere around 200 CE. It contains a few scattered references to Jesus, one of which is reproduced below:

“On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, ‘He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf.’ But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.”

The problem with the Talmud is this – it is not an objective history, but a polemic. It is obvious that the above verse is not a description of something that actually happened; rather, it is a Jewish retort to the New Testament accusation that the trial and execution of Jesus took place secretly and in haste. Theological biases render historical accounts unreliable, and this is just as true for the Jews who were answering Christian accusations as for the Christians who were making them. By the time the Talmud was compiled, centuries after Jesus’ alleged death and after the Jewish War which caused vast destruction in Jerusalem and scattered the Jewish people to the winds, third-century rabbis would have been in no position to be able to refute the very existence of Jesus (not to mention that they also lacked the exegetical techniques that would have allowed them to even suspect such a possibility). It would have been much easier to grant his existence and then slant the stories about him to favor their side of the argument rather than the Christians’, and this is exactly what happened.

Furthermore, the Talmud is without value as a historical account because it dramatically contradicts the Christian version of events, and even contradicts itself in numerous places, when speaking about Jesus. Note that the above verse says he was hanged, not crucified. The same chapter says Jesus had just five disciples, and gives them completely different names than the Bible does: Matthai, Nakai, Nezer, Buni and Todah (source – thanks to EvanT for pointing this out).

There are other Talmudic accounts that say Jesus died by stoning, not at Calvary, but at Lydda, and not by the Romans, but by the Jews. Some verses say he was the son of a Roman soldier, others say he was a magician. One mention of Jesus places his life at the time of the Maccabean kings, around 100 BCE, while another says his parents were contemporaries of a second-century rabbi. Such fragmented and inconsistent accounts show that the Talmud cannot possibly be accurate history; if it were describing true events, it would be impossible for it to contradict itself. This, combined with its late writing date, makes it even weaker than the other accounts as evidence of Jesus’ existence.

And again, not a contemporary source.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:16:31 PM
Thallus

The true name of the historian we now call Thallus is in fact not known. Nothing written by Thallus has survived to this day; the only reason we know anything about him is that he is mentioned in the writings of others. In the ninth century CE, a Christian named George Syncellus quoted an early third-century Christian named Julius Africanus, who in turn referenced the work of another man who wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean sometime between 50 and 100 CE. The true name of this man is unclear, as the manuscript is damaged and a letter is missing, but “Thallus” seems to be the most likely spelling. Neither any of his original works nor any of the original works of Africanus survive, and a fragment of third-hand hearsay stretching across eight centuries is about as weak and uncompelling as any evidence could possibly be. Nevertheless, if Syncellus and in turn Africanus are to be believed, Thallus’ history mentioned the three-hour darkness at the time of Jesus’ crucifixion. (No direct quotes from Thallus are known.)

As previously stated, this evidence is so ridiculously weak and circumstantial that it could be justifiably dismissed without going any farther. Third-hand hearsay is not compelling proof of a worldwide darkness that everyone should have noticed. Furthermore, Thallus himself did not even necessarily say it was anything out of the ordinary. Syncellus quotes Africanus as saying this:

“Thallus, in the third book of his histories, explains away the darkness as an eclipse of the sun – unreasonably, as it seems to me.”

Passover is around a full moon, and it is physically impossible for a solar eclipse to occur during a full moon, much less to last for three hours, so Africanus would be right if that was what Thallus said – but we do not know what Thallus said; he is not quoted directly. Astronomers have calculated that a solar eclipse did occur in November of 29 CE. Is it not possible that Thallus was recording this, nothing more, and that the link to the gospel story was made by Africanus who mistakenly thought it was an attempt to explain away a mysterious three-hour darkness? And of course, this is assuming that Africanus accurately referenced Thallus, and that Syncellus accurately referenced both of them. None of the links in this long chain of assumptions can be substantiated, and thus there is no good reason to accept Thallus as any corroboration of the gospel account.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:18:21 PM
Suetonius

Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus was a Roman biographer and historian whose most famous work is titled The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, a biography of twelve Roman emperors livened up with gossip and stories of scandal. Written about 120 CE, the book contains one passage apologists frequently cite:

“Because the Jews of Rome caused continous disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from the city.”

As historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, this verse is very weak. A number of anomalies immediately crop up upon reading it. One is that Jesus’ name is seemingly misspelled. But on further examination, this may not be a misspelling at all. “Chrestus” does not mean “Christ” (that would have been “Christus”) – rather, “Chrestus” was a perfectly valid Latin name in its own right, and a very common one as well. It may well be that this passage is referring to some unknown Jewish agitator, perhaps another messianic pretender such as the ones Josephus describes. Furthermore, Claudius was the Roman emperor from 41 to 54 CE. There is no indication historically that Christianity had spread to Rome by this time, or that it was powerful enough to have caused a revolt. Note, too, that the passage says it was not Christians who were causing disturbances, but Jews – and Suetonius does write about Christians elsewhere in his works, so he plainly knew the difference.

Also, Claudius’ decree is mentioned in the Bible, in Acts (18:1-2). Backing up Suetonius’ account, Acts describes it as an expulsion of Jews only. If the emperor had also expelled Christians from Rome, it seems likely that this passage would have mentioned it, since Acts never misses a chance to record persecutions of Christians. But nothing of the kind is described, which makes it even more likely that Claudius’ expulsion was a Roman-Jewish dispute with no connection to Christianity. (Thanks to EvanT for pointing this out.)

Finally, it is worth noting when this passage was written. After Josephus, the chronologically nearest witness to Jesus’ life the apologists have to offer, we now leap to 120 CE. An ambiguous reference to a person who might have been Christianity’s founder, written over seventy years after his supposed death, is hardly compelling evidence for the existence of Jesus.

There is another brief verse in Suetonius that apologists occasionally cite:

“After the great fire at Rome [during Nero’s reign]…. Punishments were also inflicted on the Christians, a sect professing a new and mischievous religious belief.”

Note the second question at the beginning of this essay – what did the historian write? This brief passage mentions nothing about the existence of Jesus, and thus is worthless as evidence of his existence. It merely proves that there were Christians in 120 CE, which no one disputes.

Again--not contemporary
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 02, 2021, 07:20:48 PM
Calm down, pal. I have just read your two posts. Now I have to think about them, before giving my reply.

I.e. talk to someone who has answers to these tough q's.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:22:01 PM
Pliny the Younger

For two years the proconsul of Bythinia, a Roman-held province in Asia Minor, Pliny the Younger is best known for several letters he wrote to the Emperor Trajan around 112 CE that provide information on life at the time. One of them says this:

“[The Christians] were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god….”

Again, note the second criterion. This passage mentions nothing about a historical Jesus, nor does it vouch for the existence of any such person. It merely states that the Christians worshipped Christ, but this proves nothing, just as a verse about the Romans worshipping Zeus would not demonstrate that such a being existed. (Note too that “Christ” is a title, not a name.) This verse does not state that this Christ was ever on Earth – it does not even state that the Christians believed he was. Thus, it is entirely compatible with an early Christianity worshipping a spiritual Christ whose death and resurrection took place in Heaven; but even if not, one hundred years is more than enough time for legends about a historical man to take root.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 07:24:09 PM
You did not list this guy, so I thought I would.
Phlegon

As we approach the end of the list, we encounter Phlegon of Tralles, a writer who lived sometime around 140 CE. Like Thallus, he is typically cited as a witness to the miraculous darkness around the time of the crucifixion; also like Thallus, his major works, the Chronicles and the Olympiads, have been lost, and the only way we know anything they said is through references made to them by later Christian commentators, such as Origen, Eusebius and Julius Africanus (who is himself lost and only preserved through quotes by another writer, George Syncellus, as previously mentioned). All of them reference Phlegon in support of the darkness. For example, Julius Africanus (as quoted by Syncellus) says the following:

“In fact, let it be so. Let the idea that this happened seize and carry away the multitude, and let the cosmic prodigy be counted as an eclipse of the sun according to its appearance. Phlegon reports that in the time of Tiberius Caesar, during the full moon, a full eclipse of the sun happened, from the sixth hour until the ninth. Clearly this is our eclipse!”

And Eusebius, the only one to quote Phlegon verbatim, has this to say:

“In fact, Phlegon, too, a distinguished reckoner of Olympiads, wrote more on these events in his 13th book, saying this: ‘Now, in the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad [32 CE], a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea.'”

Of course, considerations of the third criterion intervene – Phlegon was, by all accounts, far too late to have witnessed any of these things personally. He cannot provide independent attestation of the darkness.

However, there is a far more serious consideration of the first criterion, one that bears directly on Phlegon’s credibility as a historian. He was not a Christian as far as we know, so there are no grounds to accuse him of inventing the story to support his own beliefs. However, it seems that Phlegon was particularly fond of fantastic and miraculous stories, regardless of their origin, and endorsed as fact many things that are impossible. His book On Marvels contains stories about things such as living centaurs, ghosts, men giving birth, a thousand-year-old Greek prophetess, oracles spoken by a corpse on a battlefield, and the animated, decapitated head of the Roman general Publius, which continued to speak even after his body was devoured by a great red wolf.

By the time Phlegon wrote, in the mid- to late second century, Christian mythology about the crucifixion would have become widely spread. It is highly likely that Phlegon, never averse to fantastic stories, picked up on these tales and uncritically repeated them. A writer so plainly unreliable, and in any case known to us only through hearsay by Christians who might well have put their own spin on what he wrote, cannot be regarded as useful historical testimony.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on February 02, 2021, 10:49:15 PM
Well, Paolo, you caught me on football playoff Sunday.  So, give me some time to answer.

Isn't it interesting when people claim to have evidence for their beliefs, and then don't present it? Reminds me of Trump and his cult, who claim to have evidence but then they don't present it. I wonder if they got that tactic from the same mindset?

"Let me claim to have evidence, and then claim that I've proven my case."

This is a common tactic of religious apologists, and is now being used by political apologists.

I'd be very interested in seeing the "evidence," but I think we've seen it all before, and we aren't likely to see anything new from this Paolo.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 02, 2021, 11:05:32 PM
Isn't it interesting when people claim to have evidence for their beliefs, and then don't present it? Reminds me of Trump and his cult, who claim to have evidence but then they don't present it. I wonder if they got that tactic from the same mindset?

"Let me claim to have evidence, and then claim that I've proven my case."

This is a common tactic of religious apologists, and is now being used by political apologists.

I'd be very interested in seeing the "evidence," but I think we've seen it all before, and we aren't likely to see anything new from this Paolo.
From what I've seen, the politicians who make that claim also claim to be christian.  It is common for the people who are religious use the 'all the scholars say....' without naming them or even doing a tiny bit of research to find those who don't say.  It is easier; and besides it is common sense..............
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on February 02, 2021, 11:39:14 PM
Do you really expect Paolo to read all that? I loved it, but damn, that's a lot to take in. I learned a hella lot from it - but will Paolo?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 03, 2021, 01:28:56 AM
I.e. talk to someone who has answers to these tough q's.

So you DO admit that these questions HAVE answers, we only need to look out for the correct sources? How interesting!

@Mike -- tomorrow is my day off, so I should probably reply to you sooner this time!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 03, 2021, 01:31:35 AM
Two kids on bicycles knocked on my door wearing short pants wearing white shirts, black ties and plastic helmets. They told me about a guy named Jesus.

Certainly this post of mine proves the existence of Jesus.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 03, 2021, 07:52:28 AM
Two kids on bicycles knocked on my door wearing short pants wearing white shirts, black ties and plastic helmets. They told me about a guy named Jesus.

Certainly this post of mine proves the existence of Jesus.

Personally, I think that only *proves* you have some sort of mental issue!

But that's only an uneducated guess, of course!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 03, 2021, 08:04:47 AM
Personally, I think that only *proves* you have some sort of mental issue!

But that's only an uneducated guess, of course!
Yes, extremely uneducated and completely idiotic as well. Keep guessing !
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 09:15:47 AM
Do you really expect Paolo to read all that? I loved it, but damn, that's a lot to take in. I learned a hella lot from it - but will Paolo?
Yes, it is quite a bit of info.  But this is a huge topic when you start doing actual research.  I tried to chunk it down to bite sized chunks.  And this is not even scratching the surface of this subject.  If Paolo wants to have a conversation about the subject (and not just blow smoke at it), then he needs to read and respond.  I have not fully answered his last big response to me yet.  Tune in later...............
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 10:01:49 AM
Paolo, 'But what sort of evidence do you want? ' 
Factual evidence.  The sort actual historians consider facts.  I don't want 'all scholars say' or 'traditionally this is what is accepted' or anything like it; that is opinion and not fact.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 10:13:46 AM
Paolo, you say: 'You miss the point that many SECULAR historians and of ALL RELIGIOUS PERSUASIONS, from hindus to atheists, think that there is enough evidence to believe in a historical Jesus-- or at least as much evidence for it as for other historical figures whose existence we normally take for granted. But more on that later.

And what makes you think Carrier, who is an outspoken atheist, is truly 'neutral'?'

I don't miss any point--you seem to be missing the point; 'many' secular historians' believe just about anything.  So what?  Which ones use facts and which ones use opinion?  Historians of All Religious Persuasions, from hindus to atheists--what does that even mean??  Atheists (you seem to have a hard time figuring out what that word means) are not religious--or anti-religious; they just don't believe in any gods nor anything 'supernatural'.  And not all religious historians believe or think Jesus was factual.  Those who believe in Jesus do take his existence 'for granted'.  And??????  Most religious people do not like nor seek facts nor reasonable thought or use critical thinking--so they accept what they are told by their leaders, who need them to believe so they can gain (maintain) power and money.

I don't claim that Carrier (nor any other historian secular or religious) is without bias; but he does take pains to examine all the facts and bases his findings on those facts, not opinions.  And he makes it clear in may places in his huge book that this is only the start--he is not the 'be all, end all' on this subject.  He begs religious scholars to take up his request they take him up on his challenge of showing him (the world, really) the 'facts' they base their findings on.  And then let's discuss it.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 10:31:56 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on January 25, 2021, 10:00:54 AM
Another element that smacks of no real Jesus;  the fact that his life and story occurred on one tiny spot on earth.  And not even in the largest population center at that time.  There were many mythical gods swirling around in that area of the world at that time, as well.  The same holds true for the bible.  If the bible were found in all areas of the world, that one fact would give me serious pause and I would probably be a believer.  I mean if one could go to Asia or South America, or Sweden, or Russia, or the Pacific Islands, or New Zealand and find bible dating from the same time frame, that would seem to be proof that the bible would be true.  Or if it was shown that Jesus visited those same areas, that would be further proof of his existence.  But that is not even close to being true.  One tiny area of the world??? For me it is clear this is the folklore of one small group of people; and it is clear this particular myth was created from an amalgam of the other myths swirling around in that area at that time.

(Paolo) Okay. Do you have any evidence for your copycat thesis?

What?  Because my thoughts are not totally unique and are taken from other people makes them invalid?  Really?  Isn't all types of thoughts and research based, at least a little, on others thoughts or research?  Humans gain knowledge by piggybacking on other peoples thoughts.  A person has a thought and shares it.  Others use that thought to expand up it (or debunk it) and thus gaining more info.  Nothing wrong with copycating others thoughts and ideas. 

Consider this.  You are starting up a company of selling products to the country.  You realize that advertising is necessary to get your product exposure and increase sales.  So you buy ads in the smallest population center of the area you are selling in.  Does that make sense?  Don't you want the most exposure you can get?  Would you not want ads to reach the entire world if possible?  Well, god created the universe and our world.  But he kept screwing up and making everything imperfect.  So, out of (seeming) frustration he caused Jesus to be born and he was to fix all of his mistakes and save the world.  So, he had Jesus born in one tiny area of the world, not very populated and speaking a language only a few spoke.  Is that good advertising?  It is especially odd that he could have instantly spread the word over the entire world and in the languages of every area of the world (remember, it is his fault that people speak different languages--the Tower of Babble)  in an instant.  That way, all peoples would then have knowledge of what was going on and why.  Do I have evidence of this?  Well, yeah.  The Bible was developed in one tiny area of the world and not anywhere else. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 03, 2021, 11:36:49 AM
Mike didn't need the chair anymore. He was floating in air, a meter above the ground, and was grateful his wife didn't see the light on his face while typing...





:lol:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 01:45:43 PM
A little food for thought.
 A snippet from Carrier's new book--"on the Historicity of Jesus; Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt.
"The name 'Jesus Christ' literally means 'Savior Messiah', which actually just means 'Annointed Savior'.  The author of the Gospel of Matthew was well aware of this, and even made a point of it.  Jesus is an English derivation from the Greek spelling of the Hebrew name Joshua (Yeshua), which means 'Yahweh saves'. Christ is from the Greek christos, meaning 'annointed', which in Hebrew is masiah, 'messiah'.
     That should make us suspicious from the start.  Isn't his name abnormally convenient?"

Yeah, I would think so.  But the fundies would most likely simply say that that was the way god planned it.  Logic is not the long suit of the religious.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 03, 2021, 06:21:40 PM
Mike didn't need the chair anymore. He was floating in air, a meter above the ground, and was grateful his wife didn't see the light on his face while typing...





:lol:
I haven't posted about this for at least 5 yrs.  It's fun.  I spent up to a decade hitting the books hard about Jesus and christianity in general.  My fav part was the historicity of jesus.  I used fundamental (and hard fundy, like born-again material) books, liberal christian material, texts used in seminaries, popular christian scholars, and all of the mythist material I could find.  It was actually quite fun.  I learned quite a bit--which is fun.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 03, 2021, 08:24:52 PM

Yeah. Great reads Mike !
The ancients were expert star and sky gazers. Useful for timing crop planting/harvest and navigating the seas. They have left us their celestial calendars. Tablets dating back to 1500 BC document the application of mathematics to the variation in the length of daylight over each solar year.

Luke 23:44-45. After the the fake death of cheezus....
“It was now about noon and darkness came over the whole land until three in the afternoon because of an eclipse of the sun.”

No mention of that 3 hours of darkness in any records. It would have been a HUGE deal for all of them. NASA has calculated no eclipses would be visible anywhere near the Holy Land around that year. What a missed miraculous opportunity. Bullocks.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 04, 2021, 10:53:30 AM
This is an example of early Baruch.  Why post it again?  It fits what we are discussing in this thread, and all the material he presents is accurate:

Singulorum - the history of history ... is historiography.  The history of Christianity officially begins with Eusebius who is a contemporary of Emperor Constantine circa 325 CE.  This is basically 300 years after Paul.  History as written, is always propaganda by the winning side.  It has to be cross-examined ;-)  The writings of contemporary witnesses are the most reliable, but always biased.  One also has to distinguish between official records and popular fiction.  Most records, both Jewish and Gentile, for Palestine ... were destroyed in 70 CE, during the first Jewish-Roman war.  It doesn't take a conspiracy on the part of Jews or Romans to suppress the "Jesus" literature or groups that embodied that message ... it was illegal to operate an unauthorized men's club, and like most crimes of that era, the punishment was death, even for women.

Given that, if we imagine that America was destroyed, and 300 years later someone dug up "Tom Sawyer" ... would it be treated as historical evidence that Tom Sayer existed?  No ... but it would be proof that Mark Twain existed ... except that Mark Twain didn't exist, Samuel Clemens did.  That is what we are faced with in the textual evidence.  I have studied this early evidence myself ... specifically the "red letter" words of Jesus.  The gospels are novellas ... short religious fictions to support one or more early Christian communities ... that were more or less Pauline ... because all the other messianic Jews from 70 - 135 CE, were destroyed by the Romans in three massive Roman-Jewish wars (see Josephus for the first one).  The Gentiles wrote similar religious and secular literature, it was pulp fiction.  As Eusebius probably honestly relates ... all Jews were prohibited from the ruins of Jerusalem and a radius many miles around ... but one group, descended from the "James the Just" group, opted to apostasy from Judaism, so that they could retain access after 135 CE.  Jews continued in the neighborhood for several more centuries, particularly in Galilee ... where rabbinic Judaism was first birthed.  Historical Romans didn't write much about messianic Jews ... other than that they killed them for good reason.  Historical Jews, the surviving ones, were anti-messianic Jews ... for understandable reasons.  They did write about these troublemakers, but never about Jesus, but about the other failed pretenders to the miracle of Hannukah oil.

Pretty much anything that had been Jewish-Gentile Christianity, was leveled and rewritten circa 135 - 200 CE.  There is evidence of a non-textual kind, prior to Constantine ... but this is evidence of Jewish-Christian communities of uncertain affiliation in Jerusalem ... prior to Constantine, but how prior, we don't know.  The other non-textual evidence is there too, but it is pretty thin before Christianity was chosen, and re-imagined politically, as a State religion.  Initially this new religion was Greek Orthodox, centered on Thessalonica and Constantinople, but the people in the West didn't speak Greek much, so a Latin derivative church had to be invented, centered on Rome and Carthage.

Our first complete NT books come from 200 CE.  Josephus was considered a traitor by the rabbinic Jews, so his books weren't copied by copyists of Jewish persuasion ... but were copied by Gentile historians and eventually under Emperor Constantine, by Gentile Christians.  Gentile Christianity as we know it got its start under Paul, whose writings were edited (as any ancient writing was) and a few other pre-Constantine writings such as The Didache ... which describes an early congregational practice circa Paul.  Diaspora synagogues were mixed communities of kosher Jews and god-fearers.  Many god-fearers were Gentiles who had been freed by their Jewish masters.  You can't go without a boss ... when you were manumitted from slavery ... your ownership was passed from your master to a new paterfamilias.  In some cases this was manumission as a Roman citizen (who was a slave of the Emperor).  Paul's ancestry in Tarsus was likely that kind ... as he admits, his citizenship wasn't purchased ... which means that one could do that ... in the early Roman Empire, most people were not citizens, they were subjects.  The way Paul talks of slavery on several levels ... I don't think that his ancestor had been a free Jew, who purchased (bribed really) a Roman citizenship off of the local governor.  It was more likely a manumission.  This is why Paul targeted manumitted slaves primarily.  This is why Paul speaks with a "slave mentality" and this is very useful to Roman Christianity later on.  But for the first 100 years, Christianoi (Greek for messianic-maniacs) ... just as Quakers/Shakers are named by their enemies much later ... were Jews of various kinds.  There are multiple gospels because there are multiple kinds of "Jesus communities" ... and Paul was one of those "apostles" who went around forming them, initially out of Jewish and god-fearers in existing synagogues ... where anyone who accepted Paul's message, was expelled from the synagogue by both kosher Jews and other messianic Jews.  It was the Roman authorities you had to be afraid of, because if you weren't associated with a legal synagogue, and still congregated, you were a felon.  But on this expulsion, you aren't beaten ... as Paul wasn't ... but upon re-admittence ... as Paul was.  Paul literally underwent multiple excommunications, to get more followers, he got readmitted (probably under false pretenses .. this is why there was a Jewish posse following him everywhere to warn the next synagogue down the road) multiple times ... and on re-admittance was flogged and trod upon at the entrance to the synagogue.  Quite the maniac.  Synagogues were still practicing this 1500 years later, in the time of Baruch Spinoza (who didn't seek re-admittence and so wasn't flogged or trod upon).

Anyway, after 135 CE, the various Christian communities (hence the diatribes concerning heresy by the other Christian groups different from the writer in question) were pretty much Gentile, because they had to be ... and Jewish Christianity pretty much died out, under Constantinian Christianity (State Christianity aka Greek Orthodox Church) by 400 CE.  Constantine's Christianity wasn't anti-Semitic by sentiment but by legal proscription.  Though Jewish Christianity has enjoyed a revival in the last 50 years (as did messianic secular Judaism in Palestine/Israel over the last 100 years).  Early rabbinic Judaism continued also ... but was pretty much suppressed in the Roman Empire by 400 CE also ... that is why there is the break in the Talmud ... from the Jerusalem Talmud to the Babylonian Talmud.  Under Emperor Julian the Apostate, the Temple was going to be rebuilt (as some messianic Jews are planning even now) .. but the early death of this emperor prevented this.  The back-reaction by the Gentile Christians was considerable (destruction of synagogues).

It is a unique Jewish practice, since the destruction of 70 CE ... to preserve perfect copies of Torah ... which is the primary part of the OT or Tanakh.  This is expensive even today ... it is done by hand, and if the scribe makes a single error, the whole scroll gets thrown out.  This is why a kosher Torah scroll costs $40,000 to make.  The OT as a book, was a much later invention circa 950 CE ... by a dissident Jewish group called the Karaiites.  The Aleppo Codex is (except for OT scrolls from the Dead Sea) the oldest partial OT book.  The slightly later Leningrad Codex is the oldest complete Tanakh in existence today ... but hardly the oldest Bible.  The Bible was originally ordered composed by Emperor Constantine.  This was done for 25 copies on vellum ... and each one took an emperor's ransom to make.  The Christian scribes had to kill 3000 sheep to make one copy ... you couldn't just jog on down to Kinko's ;-)  One of these Bibles, or possibly a slightly later issue, has been saved as the Codex Siniaticus ... it is also incomplete, as the Aleppo Codex is.  The story as to how the NT came about is fascinating but a distraction ... suffice it to say, prior to Constantine, we know that it existed as separate codexes (books) not scrolls.  These codexes were on papyrus ... and were actually recycled papyrus ... and the place that the recycled papyrus was produced, and bound into blank journals for business use (as journals are used for bookkeeping today) was in a Lebanese coastal town called ... da.da.da ... Byblos.  BTW - the Codex Siniaticus has plenty of scribal error in it, with emendations to the side of the error.  Gentiles were not going to throw away even a single sheet of vellum for a mere error.  Also Jews don't casually destroy sacred writings ... they are carefully stored or buried.  When the Codex Siniaticus was found, it was literally being used as tinder to light the kitchen stove at the Mt Sinai Monastery.  And rabbinic Jews would agree ... to consign it to the flames.


this was from 2015
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 04, 2021, 02:58:52 PM
MIke, you could have saved yourself a lot of time disproving the Jesus myth to yourself with only one book; The Bible should be enough to convince any thinking person that Jesus was not real.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 04, 2021, 04:38:03 PM
MIke, you could have saved yourself a lot of time disproving the Jesus myth to yourself with only one book; The Bible should be enough to convince any thinking person that Jesus was not real.
Yeah, you are right.  Actually, I did read the entire bible and a couple of seminary texts that taught the bible.  I wanted to understand what the christian viewpoint of all this was.  But you are right--if anybody reads the bible carefully and with an open mind, they will find all the reasons why christianity wrong.  The key is 'with an open mind'; believers don't have a mind, open or closed.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 04, 2021, 07:39:45 PM
“Open mind”...now there is a term that is certainly arbitrary. Open mind to “us” is simply employing logic and simple reason. Open mind to the religious means being able to set aside logic and simple reason and be willing to at least entertain the idea of magic. Open mind seems to be a fallacy of suggestion. For the religious cannot ever have it and those who have it cannot ever abandon it.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 05, 2021, 10:29:58 AM
Well, Paolo, your responses to my posts about jesus were about what I expected.  Oh---you didn't make any?  That's about what I expected.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 05, 2021, 10:59:43 AM
“Open mind”...now there is a term that is certainly arbitrary. Open mind to “us” is simply employing logic and simple reason. Open mind to the religious means being able to set aside logic and simple reason and be willing to at least entertain the idea of magic. Open mind seems to be a fallacy of suggestion. For the religious cannot ever have it and those who have it cannot ever abandon it.
Beware of the person who says, "Keep and open mind," because they most likely have a fallacy to sell.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on February 05, 2021, 01:50:03 PM
Beware of the person who says, "Keep and open mind," because they most likely have a fallacy to sell.
Ikr?  Let's say I woke up this morning, took the dog for a walk, and saw a real, live dragon with my own eyes.  I wouldn't just come to you with a story and say "you gotta believe me!".  I would show you any evidence I could possibly get my hands on - video, footprints, claw marks, scorch marks, discarded scales, etc.  And if I didn't have anything substantial, I would simply ask you to be on alert and let me know if you see anything odd.  I would NEVER ask you to take it on faith because anything can be taken on faith, so that route actually hurts my claim because it lumps my claim in with a lot of dodgy and probably false claims.

The only reason people say to take stuff on faith is because they don't have evidence and they know it.  It's a tactic born of desperation and it's sad that it actually works sometimes.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 05, 2021, 09:34:28 PM
Earl Doherty argues that Christianity began as a mystical-revelatory religion, very different from the "deviant" sect that won the propaganda war to become the eventual "orthodoxy." The latter gained prominence in the 2nd century and achieved total victory by the 4th. According to this theory, the idea of an historical progenitor was not original to the faith even in Paul's day, but evolved over the course of the later 1st century. As Doherty argues, "Jesus Christ" (which means "The Anointed Savior") was originally a heavenly being, whose atoning death took place at the hands of demonic beings in a supernatural realm halfway between heaven and earth, a sublunar sphere where he assumed a fleshly, quasi-human form. This and the rest of the "gospel" was revealed to the first Christians in visions and inspirations and through the discovery of hidden messages in the scriptures. After the confusion of the Jewish War and persistent battles over power in the church, rooted in a confused mass of variant sectarian dogmas, a new cult arose with the belief that Jesus actually came to earth and was crucified by Jews with the complicity of the Roman authorities. To defend itself against sects more closely adhering to the original, mystical faith, the new church engaged in polemics and power politics, and eventually composed or adopted writings (chiefly the canonical Gospels) supporting its views.

The "scandalous" consequence of Doherty's theory is that Jesus didn't exist. But it cannot be emphasized enough that Doherty's thesis is not "Jesus didn't exist, therefore Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect" but "Christianity started as a mystical-revelatory Jewish sect, therefore Jesus didn't exist." This is significant. Most scholars who argue that Jesus didn't exist (who are called "ahistoricists," because they deny the "historicity" of Jesus, or "mythicists," because they argue Jesus is mythical) have little in the way of reasons beyond a whole complex of arguments from silence. Doherty, in contrast, uses arguments from silence only to support his thesis. He does not base it on such arguments, but rather on positive evidence, especially a slew of very strange facts that his theory accounts for very well but that traditional historicism ignores, or explains poorly. By far most of the criticism or even dismissal of Doherty's work is based on the criticism or dismissal of the Argument from Silence, or his (often supposed) deployment of it. This completely misses the strongest elements of his case: evidence that Christianity did in fact begin as a mystical-revelatory religion.

Little needs to be said about Earl Doherty's views. In addition to not being supported, as I said previously, by TRADITIONAL historians (Christian OR OTHERWISE), his work arguably contains many logical/analytical/factual errors and not even skeptics really trust it. Bart D. Ehrman had this to say:

''[The book Jesus, Neither God nor Man is] filled with so many unguarded and undocumented statements and claims, and so many misstatements of fact, that it would take a 2,400-page book to deal with all the problems... Not a single early Christian source supports Doherty's claim that Paul and those before him thought of Jesus as a spiritual, not a human being, who was executed in the spiritual, not the earthly realm."

This Jesus, Neither God nor Man is said to be ''[a] revised edition of [The Jesus Puzzle], with a new title [...] expanded by incorporating the rebuttals to criticisms received since 1999 and accumulated on his website''.

So, if this book sequel is said to be same book, but a self-proclaimed 'improved' one, and Ehrman had this to say about it, then of course it follows that what he said can be equally applied, arguably even more, to the weaker first book.

If someone as virulent anti-Christian as Bart Erhman has such a view of Doherty's work, do we really need to go any further? The guy is an obvious hack. I rest my case. Why would he say any of this if Doherty's book is nothing but horsecrap?

The mythical Jesus did not have the name Mr. Jesus Christ (no middle initial either--although I like to add an H. to it or simply say 'Jesus fucking Christ'--especially when I hit my thumb with a hammer.

This is a phenomenally dumb statement. Was this supposed a joke or something? I wouldn't know, since I have Asperger's Syndrome.

Anyway, I just wanted to say this. Did Carrier really wrote this in a scholarly, professional review? It seems very inappropriate, unless he wants to gratuitously attack the Christian religion and its believers. Which would be not be surprising coming from the ilk of New Atheism shitheads, such as Dawkins, Harris, etc.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 05, 2021, 09:57:03 PM
Well, Paolo, your responses to my posts about jesus were about what I expected.  Oh---you didn't make any?  That's about what I expected.

Well, sorry that I have a sick grandmother that I have to take care of daily, and cannot immediately indulge, 24/7, your atheistic delusions.

Thankfully, I had to say much less this time!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 05, 2021, 10:01:41 PM
This is a phenomenally dumb statement. Was this supposed a joke or something? I wouldn't know, since I have Asperger's Syndrome.

Anyway, I just wanted to say this. Did Carrier really wrote this in a scholarly, professional review? It seems very inappropriate, unless he wants to gratuitously attack the Christian religion and its believers. Which would be not be surprising coming from the ilk of New Atheism shitheads, such as Dawkins, Harris, etc.

I did a cursory Web search, and could not find that specific bit on Carrier's original 'review'. I suppose this must be Mike's own commentary on it, thus. He formatted his post so badly that I couldn't tell what was his crap versus Carrier's.

Well, I suppose I should apologize for this 'misreading', anyway!  :lol:
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 05, 2021, 11:03:01 PM

Anyway, I just wanted to say this. Did Carrier really wrote this in a scholarly, professional review? It seems very inappropriate, unless he wants to gratuitously attack the Christian religion and its believers. Which would be not be surprising coming from the ilk of New Atheism shitheads, such as Dawkins, Harris, etc.
Do you need to ask me what Carrier wrote or not write.  Look it up. So far all you have offered is your opinion.  And not even on the central question of whether or not Jesus was an actual person.  Do you have any facts to offer or just slurs like 'shithead' or you own rambling opinion?????
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 05, 2021, 11:06:01 PM
Well, sorry that I have a sick grandmother that I have to take care of daily, and cannot immediately indulge, 24/7, your atheistic delusions.

Thankfully, I had to say much less this time!
Sorry about your grandmother--hopefully, with your help, she will improve. 

My atheistic thoughts may be delusions--if so, please point out how that is the case.  Name calling and pure opinion proves nothing. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 05, 2021, 11:10:00 PM
Paolo, I have pointed out that none of your offered witness writers were contemporary, nor did they offer fact one about the supposed life of a non-mythical Jesus.  Now, can you offer up a single writer who was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him?  Or any writings of Jesus or anyone who followed him?  The obvious answer is that you cannot, for there are not any.  So, all you can do is call me names.  That is the usual way it goes with theists--even ones who pose as an atheist.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 06, 2021, 02:37:53 AM
Paolo, I have pointed out that none of your offered witness writers were contemporary, nor did they offer fact one about the supposed life of a non-mythical Jesus.  Now, can you offer up a single writer who was a contemporary of Jesus who wrote about him?  Or any writings of Jesus or anyone who followed him?  The obvious answer is that you cannot, for there are not any.  So, all you can do is call me names.  That is the usual way it goes with theists--even ones who pose as an atheist.

Mike, I was answering your second post in Reply #202. I have not read any of the ramblings about the so-called ''historians who mention Jesus''. I plan to do so and respond over on the weekend. Please note that I have a lot of stuff to do and the issues this debate includes should not be answered hastily. But I have not so far failed to adress (or 'dodge', if you will) ANY of your points.

Considering all this, I ask for a bit more patience. 

P.S.: I have only 'attacked' you or others here after you/they 'attacked' me first -- as in, disingenuously calling me a ''theist''.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 06, 2021, 03:22:02 AM
Hey friend, before you accuse me of ''not answering'' you (I ain't not answering you; I have not enough time to be so fast, simple as that), may I pose a simple question to satisfy your urge for quick answers? It tackles on what you have babbling about in the last few posts, given the cursory glance I just entertained.

The question is simple: what is the difference between Jesus and Socrates?

Everyone knows Jesus didn't write anything himself. But neither did Socrates. We only know about Socrates due to his disciple Plato. Like we know about Jesus due to his disciples.

So, may I ask how do we know that Socrates existed, while Jesus didn't? What sets them apart? Could you pinpoint that specifically?

OK, that may be more than one question. My bad.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 06, 2021, 08:55:32 AM
Hey friend, before you accuse me of ''not answering'' you (I ain't not answering you; I have not enough time to be so fast, simple as that), may I pose a simple question to satisfy your urge for quick answers? It tackles on what you have babbling about in the last few posts, given the cursory glance I just entertained.

The question is simple: what is the difference between Jesus and Socrates?

Everyone knows Jesus didn't write anything himself. But neither did Socrates. We only know about Socrates due to his disciple Plato. Like we know about Jesus due to his disciples.

So, may I ask how do we know that Socrates existed, while Jesus didn't? What sets them apart? Could you pinpoint that specifically?

OK, that may be more than one question. My bad.
Take all the time you want.  I'd say a grandmother's well being is much more important than being on the computer. 

Socrates has nothing to do with Jesus.  Socrates did not claim to be the savior of mankind; and nobody is claiming he is the savior of mankind.  Who cares if Socrates lived or not; it has little to no bearing on my life or yours.  It is claimed, however, that Jesus is not only the savior of mankind, but the only one who can save you (from what, has never been made clear).  That claim far, far eclipses any made for Socrates, or Alexander, or Robin Hood, or anybody else.  I keep asking you for facts that can help establish that Jesus lived as a real person.  Nothing so far.......................
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 06, 2021, 01:48:00 PM
Take all the time you want.  I'd say a grandmother's well being is much more important than being on the computer. 

Socrates has nothing to do with Jesus.  Socrates did not claim to be the savior of mankind; and nobody is claiming he is the savior of mankind.  Who cares if Socrates lived or not; it has little to no bearing on my life or yours.  It is claimed, however, that Jesus is not only the savior of mankind, but the only one who can save you (from what, has never been made clear).  That claim far, far eclipses any made for Socrates, or Alexander, or Robin Hood, or anybody else.  I keep asking you for facts that can help establish that Jesus lived as a real person.  Nothing so far.......................

We have the Synoptic Gospels, for one.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 06, 2021, 02:36:19 PM
We have the Synoptic Gospels, for one.
Yes, we do have them.  Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.  The order in which they were written was Mark, about 70; Matthew about 90's; Luke (Acts--same author) a little later than Matthew; and John, about 120.  Note that the earliest, Mark, was written some 40 years after Jesus is said to have lived.  Even though they are given names, the actual authors are unknown.  Paul was the first writer of the NT in it's current form.  An interesting little job, would be to read the NT books in the order in which they were written.  Paul's writings would have to be read then before the Synoptics.  Also understand that of the 13 books attested to Paul, only 6 are thought to have been written by him, 6 by pseudo Paul (writers who wrote and then put Paul's name on the writings) and Hebrews, who all agree was not written by Paul.  Anyway, Paul does not give us any biographical data for Jesus--who was dead prior to Paul's writings.  Paul talks about a celestial Jesus, not a flesh and blood one.  Paul has many suggestions about how the church should be conducted and how people should act, but not once does he quote from Jesus to back up his arguments.  Isn't that a bit strange?  Also note that the Synoptics have many conflicts about the life and conduct of Jesus.  And also understand that the only known author of any of the NT books is Paul.  We don't know who wrote any of the others.

Also realize that we do not have a complete NT in its current form until the mid 300's.  What we have prior to that time are bits and pieces of each book; not one of which is in exact agreement with any other fragment.  If you wish, I could supply a link to a site used by bible scholars that talks about high and low criticism and how each of the different fragments say and how they are studied.  I find the site very interesting, but it is long and deep.  Upwards to 85 different gospels were written, most of which we only have what they were named because most of them were destroyed by the church as the NT as it is today was being put together.  An example of one is The Gospel of Thomas, which prior to 1945 was known by name only.  In 1945, an intact copy was found near Nag Humandi by local nomads--the whole cashe was found in a sealed cave in sealed clay jars. 

Also note that the entire NT is not the same NT that is given in the King James Version of the Bible.  In fact, there really is no 'the bible' because there are literally 100's of different versions of what is called the Bible.  Want proof.  Go to any large bible books store and there you can pick and chose what version you want.  Why are they called versions?  Because each one is different than the other one.

Yeah, I know I rattled on for far too long.  But the NT does not give us any factual data about Jesus.  The entirety the NT was written well after his death. So, I will challenge you to find any writings about Jesus during his  supposed life.  (I'll offer a clue--there isn't any)

Philo is a great example of what I'm talking about.  He lived roughly during the same time frame as Jesus.  Philo, as you remember, was a renowned Jewish author/philosopher who traveled all around the same region, making several trips from Alexander to Jerusalem.  If Jesus were indeed alive and doing what he is supposed to have been doing, Philo would have taken a very keen interest in it.  He was a prolific writer and would have written about Jesus in detail.  So, by reading Philo we should learn a great deal about Jesus and his deeds.  Except Philo does not even write one sentence dealing with Jesus.  I find that beyond strange.  And no author wrote a single word about this savior of mankind; this messenger from god.  Nothing--nada. Beyond strange.   
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 06, 2021, 05:55:09 PM
No mention from any secular source of the 12 apostles/disciples either. Strange since these guys felt like they could certainly wield some power:
Luke 9:52, And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53  but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54  When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, 'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' 
Really? Then comes the lesson of pride and the weak are the strong. What nonsense. They play their scripted roles perfectly, the 12 do. Repeatedly astonished, yet totally ignorant when required and act as the snitches and traitors right on que.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 06, 2021, 06:43:40 PM
No mention from any secular source of the 12 apostles/disciples either. Strange since these guys felt like they could certainly wield some power:
Luke 9:52, And he sent messengers on ahead, who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; 53  but the people there did not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem. 54  When the disciples James and John saw this, they asked, 'Lord, do you want us to call fire down from heaven to destroy them?' 
Really? Then comes the lesson of pride and the weak are the strong. What nonsense. They play their scripted roles perfectly, the 12 do. Repeatedly astonished, yet totally ignorant when required and act as the snitches and traitors right on que.
Yeah, that is amazing bullshit!!  The role of Judas is quite the same--snitch.  Yet he had no choice.  God and Jesus had it all worked out that somebody had to snitch Jesus off, and Judas got the short straw and had to turn Jesus in to the authorities--he had no choice, it was scripted for him.  Yet he takes all kinds of shit for it.  He had no control, he had to do as he was created to do.  Much like Eve in the garden--she had no choice, she did as she was created to do.  God is good at that--setting people up and then blaming them for what they did.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 09, 2021, 10:23:21 PM
Well, that was a lot to take in. I will respond in a few days, probably. But I read all of it. :)

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 09, 2021, 11:10:41 PM
Well, that was a lot to take in. I will respond in a few days, probably. But I read all of it. :)
I know how you feel.  I remember feeling much the same way when I started by research.  I went into my study with the idea that Jesus was an actual person, but a wandering preacher, fully human who had had all these attributes added on after his death.  But I really wanted to find out what the facts were and I was willing to follow where those facts took me.  It was a lot to take in and the study ended up lasting years.  It turned into a bit of a hobby.  I still have a decent library of books that take both extremes of the question and a bunch in the middle (that means those on the yes side, the no side and those who say who knows?).  Anyway, I'm interested in your reply.  Do you have any others who you think can provide eyewitnesses of Jesus and his acts?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 10, 2021, 01:24:57 AM
I know how you feel.  I remember feeling much the same way when I started by research.  I went into my study with the idea that Jesus was an actual person, but a wandering preacher, fully human who had had all these attributes added on after his death.  But I really wanted to find out what the facts were and I was willing to follow where those facts took me.  It was a lot to take in and the study ended up lasting years.  It turned into a bit of a hobby.  I still have a decent library of books that take both extremes of the question and a bunch in the middle (that means those on the yes side, the no side and those who say who knows?).  Anyway, I'm interested in your reply.  Do you have any others who you think can provide eyewitnesses of Jesus and his acts?

Well, I've heard of Matthew.

''For example, suggested dates for the writing of the Gospel of Matthew range from as early as A.D. 40 [...] There are scholars who believe the Gospel of Matthew was written as early as ten to twelve years after the death of Christ. Those who hold to this earlier dating of Matthew believe he first wrote his Gospel in Aramaic, and then it was later translated into Greek. One of the evidences of this earlier dating of Matthew’s Gospel is that early church leaders such as Irenaeus, Origen, and Eusebius recorded that Matthew first wrote his Gospel for Jewish believers while he was still in Israel. In fact Eusebius (a bishop of Caesarea and known as the father of church history) reported that Matthew wrote his Gospel before he left Israel to preach in other lands, which Eusebius says happened about 12 years after the death of Christ. Some scholars believe that this would place the writing of Matthew as early as A.D. 40-45 [...]''.

https://www.gotquestions.org/when-Gospels-written.html.

So, if those dates above are correct, that means Matthew wrote his Gospel only a decade or so after Jesus's death. And since he was one of the 12 Apostles, he was a direct eyewitness of Jesus's life.

Regards. :)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 10, 2021, 12:12:41 PM
Paolo, there is not 100% agreement on when, who or why the NT was written.  One can find 'scholars' who date the NT a few years after Jesus was supposed to die and those who date it over 100 years after his death, with most in the middle somewhere or somewhen.

For example:  Rather than try to commit to specifics here, I will just give the possible ranges of dates that have been argued and which are at least possible. The material for this section is taken from my own survey of scholarly consensus found in numerous sources. It is believed that Jesus died c. 30 A.D. Specifically, if he died under Pontius Pilate, the date must have at least been between 26 and 36, the ten years we know Pilate to have served in Judaea.[1] Whatever the date, Paul's conversion follows one to three years later. The earliest known Christian writings are the epistles of Paul, composed between 48 and 58 A.D. Some of these are of doubted authenticity (and were even in antiquity), but the debate is too complex to summarize here. The other letters, and the Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of John), are of even more uncertain authorship and date. They are presumed to have been written in the same period or later (1 Peter, for instance, may have been written, some scholars say, as late as 110 A.D.).

The Gospels cannot really be dated, nor are the real authors known. Their names were assigned early, but not early enough for us to be confident they were accurately known. It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural. It is supposed that the Gospels did not exist before 58 simply because neither Paul nor any other epistle writer mentions or quotes them, and this is a reasonable argument as far as things go. On the other hand, Mark is presumed earlier, and the others later, because Mark is simpler, and at least Matthew and Luke appear to borrow material from him (material that is likely his own invention, cf. my review of The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark).

All the Gospels except John contain possible allusions to the destruction of Jerusalem, which was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D., and thus it is likely they were all written after that date.[2] But that assumes the statements attributed to Jesus are apocryphal--they may have been genuine, the usual doom and gloom apocalyptic fantasizing, and then confirmed only by accident (or, if one is a believer, divine destiny) when the city and its temple were actually destroyed. They could also have been added to the text later. On the other hand, it has been argued with some merit that Luke borrowed material from Josephus, and if so that would date his Gospel (and Acts) after 94 A.D.[3] Finally, there are good arguments for the existence of a lost source-text called Q which was used by Matthew and Luke to supplement their borrowing from Mark, and this has been speculatively dated as early as the 50's A.D.[3a]

This is only an example of the state of ignorance we are in whenever scholars try to debate the dates of these writings. Although it remains possible that all the Gospels were written after 100, those rare scholars who try to place all Christian writings in the 2nd century have nothing to base such a position on. At least some of Paul's epistles can be reasonably taken as dating no more than 16 to 32 years after the oral tradition had begun to flourish after the death of Jesus, although adulteration of those letters by later editors remains possible, and it is also possible that even in Paul's day forgeries were being made and circulated (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:2). The Gospels were not likely to have been written down so soon, and we have clear evidence, in numerous variations, that they were altered at various points in their transmission, and scholarly work in the last two centuries has gone far to get us to the earliest versions possible.

Nevertheless, any number of unknown alterations could still have been made that have not been detected (a great many have been--both errors and deliberate alterations or omissions), and it is important to note that the ancients did not have at one glance the scope of manuscript data we have, nor did they (with a few exceptions) even have the analytical and palaeographical skills now employed to derive a reliable manuscript archetype from a scientific collation of numerous exemplars. In other words, no one in antiquity ever saw a completely accurate collection of what would eventually become the 27 New Testament books, until perhaps the time of Origen or Clement of Alexandria (see XII and XIV), and even then most likely only those few scholars would have enjoyed the privilege. But this is still doubtful--it does not appear that either man went out of his way to find and trace the history of all existing manuscripts, in all churches, and in all translations, yet that is what would have been required to decisively collate a close approximation to the original texts (and with regard to facing an even worse problem today, cf. M 267ff.; and for an example, see Bible).

Basically, we don't know who wrote Matthew, or when and where.  All these details are supplied differently depending upon the purpose of the particular 'scholar'.

As an aside, while Eusebius is called the historian of the church, he has been proven very unreliable; he has been shown to have lied about a number of things.  And he lived around 300 ad, much, much later than supposed Jesus lived.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 10, 2021, 01:46:57 PM
Paolo, as you dig deeper into the bible, you will find that none of it can be used as a witness for a supposed Jesus.  Also consider that there really is no 'the bible'--there are versions of versions.  We do not have the autograph (first document) of any of the bible.  Mostly we don't know who wrote the material--and that includes the old testament as well.  We do know that there was much, much more material in existence during the 1st cent. from which the current bibles were crafted from.  Much of it was destroyed as the church leaders determined that particular material was not wanted nor needed. 

So, the bible is of no value in proving Jesus existed.  There were no persons who wrote about Jesus (not even Jesus himself) who was alive while he was alive.  So where does that leave us?  Can you think of any other sources for the supposed Jesus?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 10, 2021, 03:54:39 PM
If you actually read Matthew it is written completely in the third person, for example, not "me" but "him" and not "we" but "they". Oops. This is not how a participant talks. Who is this person standing there somehow recording what an angel says to poor Saint Joe in a dream?

But after he had considered this, an angel of the LORD appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

If we add a cartoon drawing does that help?
(https://www.bing.com/th?id=OIP.QUrAVD57hF2RmUScJiysswAAAA&pid=3.1&w=300&h=300&p=0)

So why did cheezus (and himself, the lerd) select poor illiterate fishermen to carry such an important message to save our souls from himself? Why show up in an illiterate fringe area of the empire? Why not wait another couple thousand years worth of human development (2,000/200,000 = 1% of our existence) when everyone has cell phone with a camera?

And since so many billions have not "heard the word" or were born before the savior, are given an exemption from eternal punishment why even bother telling anyone? Not like a billions of Chinese are worrying about Christian hell.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 11, 2021, 12:02:26 PM
Personally, I'm fine with the Tacitus reference. Hence, I'm not a Mythicist. If you guys think that makes me a "Christian", that's your problem, not mine. Many atheists share my position.

However, I must ask. Mike, are you a Mythicist?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 11, 2021, 12:22:27 PM
Personally, I'm fine with the Tacitus reference. Hence, I'm not a Mythicist. If you guys think that makes me a "Christian", that's your problem, not mine. Many atheists share my position.

However, I must ask. Mike, are you a Mythicist?
Basically, I think Jesus is a fiction.  There is simply NO evidence that shows he was a real person.  I think the church leaders created Jesus from the dying/hero gods of that region.  The church leaders turned out to be quite the skilled propaganda users and added/changed/created whatever traits they wanted Jesus to have.  And then they destroyed any evidence or writings that they did not use or want to keep.  Does that make me a mythicist?  Sure I can live with that label.

I'm fine with what Tacitus wrote.  But I don't think anything that he did write points to a 'real' Jesus.  Why do you think it does?

And I don't think you are a christian, but you use many christian stances without seemly questioning their sources or reasoning.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hijiri Byakuren on February 11, 2021, 02:20:26 PM
There's more evidence of Muhammad's existence than Jesus'. Allahu ackbar.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 11, 2021, 04:05:30 PM
There's more evidence of Muhammad's existence than Jesus'. Allahu ackbar.
And there's just as much evidence that Paul Bunyan was as real as Jesus.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 11, 2021, 07:53:53 PM
And there's just as much evidence that Paul Bunyan was as real as Jesus.

I do think there is a small chance that there was a guy or two that could have been the origins of the oral traditions that eventually became Jesus. It's really not that important. The key here is that there are many 'other' gospels besides Mark, Mathew, Luke and John that got thrown out by christians themselves as fiction. We weren't supposed to find those gnostic books. So OK, we know they were inventing stories as a general practice. But the real kicker is that Mark, Mathew, and Luke were all about Jesus's warnings to repent and prepare for the kingdom of heaven. A giant 'reset' was coming any day and Jesus was just the messenger, a human son of god. Well it didn't happen.

Then the story changes in the newest gospel, the gospel of John. Jesus starts professing his own Divinity. Whoa !!! "I and the Father are one.”. This is new and incredibly suspect. It changes the whole narrative (because the prophesy has failed) and now Jesus becomes the church. You are not gonna hear this truthful analysis in bible study or theology class, LOL.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 11, 2021, 09:27:02 PM
Okay, I will grant (grudgingly so) there is a .00000000001 % chance that Jesus was an actual man. 

Consider this--the church without a real man to account for, can make as many changes to his teachings as they wish and they would not have to worry about people who actually heard him what he said.  Creating the Jesus you want was a boon for the early church.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 11, 2021, 09:49:47 PM
Basically, I think Jesus is a fiction.  There is simply NO evidence that shows he was a real person.  I think the church leaders created Jesus from the dying/hero gods of that region.  The church leaders turned out to be quite the skilled propaganda users and added/changed/created whatever traits they wanted Jesus to have.  And then they destroyed any evidence or writings that they did not use or want to keep.  Does that make me a mythicist?  Sure I can live with that label.

I'm fine with what Tacitus wrote.  But I don't think anything that he did write points to a 'real' Jesus.  Why do you think it does?

And I don't think you are a christian, but you use many christian stances without seemly questioning their sources or reasoning.

I should have said Josephus, not Tacitus. Although I think Tacitus is sort of okay too.

The scholarly consensus -- i. e., not the two extremes of the positions, think that the Testimonium Flavianum is a mix of forgery/interpolation with actual writing by Josephus. Do you dispute this consensus?

If so, why?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 11, 2021, 10:07:19 PM
Okay, I will grant (grudgingly so) there is a .00000000001 % chance that Jesus was an actual man. 

Consider this--the church without a real man to account for, can make as many changes to his teachings as they wish and they would not have to worry about people who actually heard him what he said.  Creating the Jesus you want was a boon for the early church.
The oldest partial scraps of new testament scripture we have today are from the 2nd century about 150 years after the story was initially scribed. So hand written copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy......ad nauseum.
(https://bryanwindle.files.wordpress.com/2019/02/p90.jpg)
Complete new testament books are centuries later.

In 2005, Bart D. Ehrman reported estimates from 200,000 to 400,000 variants based on 5,700 Greek and 10,000 Latin manuscripts, various other ancient translations, and quotations by the Church Fathers.[4] In 2014 Eldon J. Epp raised the estimate as high as 750,000.[5] Peter J. Gurry puts the number of non-spelling variants among New Testament manuscripts around 500,000, though he acknowledges his estimate is higher than all previous ones.[6]

In fact many of the best loved bible stories like the prostitute story
 “He that is without sin among you, let him cast the first stone at her.” is missing in older manuscripts. Same with the 'snake handling and speaking in tongues'. And that is after the oral phase. It is FUBAR.


Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 11, 2021, 11:49:10 PM
ad nauseum.

It's ''ad nauseam''...just saying, by the way.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2021, 12:00:37 AM
If I remember correctly, no two pieces of the same verse agree with any other. 

Here is a tiny snippet of a fantastic web site (well, it is if one is interested in high/low criticism of the bible):

The Textual History of the Books of the New Testament
Contents: Introduction
The Books:
The Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John
Acts
Paul: Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews
Catholic Epistles: James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 1 John, 2 John and 3 John, Jude
Apocalypse

Introduction
The history of the New Testament text cannot be written based on our present knowledge. We do not know, and likely will never know, how the original text was transmuted into the forms found in our present manuscripts.

And yet, knowing textual history is important for criticism. The more we know about it, the better we are able to reconstruct the original text. And there are certain things which all critics will agree on -- e.g. the existence of the Alexandrian and Byzantine text-types, and the broad nature of (though not the reason for or significance of) their differences.

This article attempts to briefly outline what little we know about the history of the various New Testament books. Much of what is said here parallels the material in the article on Text-Types, but the emphasis is different. The discussion is concerned primarily with major changes and deliberate (recensional) activity.

The sections which follow are organized by corpus, and then by book within the corpus. In general this document does not attempt to give a definitive history, but merely to outline the questions while allowing the student to form conclusions.

The Gospels
Most of the evolution of the gospels took place after they were gathered into a single corpus. Of the four widely-acknowledged text-types, three (the Alexandrian, Byzantine, and "Western") are universally agreed to be found in all four gospels. This is less certain in the case of the "Cæsarean" text, which has been studied primarily in Mark -- but if it exists at all, it almost certainly exists for all four gospels.

Both the Alexandrian and "Western" text-types appear to date back to at least the second century. In the case of the Alexandrian text, this is based on the age of the early papyri, most of which, including P66 and P75, have Alexandrian texts. The age of the "Western" text is based on the witness of early writers such as Irenæus.

The date of the "Cæsarean" text is uncertain. It is often described as a combination of the Alexandrian and "Western" texts, but this is not true. (If it were, it would imply that the "Cæsarean" text is the result of recensional activity. But the type is not unified enough for this.) Rather, it has a combination of readings characteristic of those text-types (this is inevitable, since most variants are binary), with some variants of its own (e.g. "Jesus Barabbas" in Matt. 27:16-17; also a very high number of harmonizing variants, at least in Mark). If those who champion the text-type are correct, it was in existence by the third century, when Origen used it.

The earliest Greek witness to the Byzantine text is the uncial A, of the fifth century. The Peshitta Syriac is also largely (though not overwhelmingly) Byzantine; its date is uncertain though it is usually ascribed to the fourth century (and can hardly be later than this).

Hort thought that the Byzantine text was recensional (i.e. that someone, perhaps Lucian of Antioch, assembled it). Certainly it is more unified than any of the other text-types. But it is now generally believed that even the Byzantine text evolved naturally. There is thus no evidence of recensional activity in the gospels as a whole.

Matthew
Of the gospels, Matthew shows the fewest signs of recensional activity. There are no changes in writing style and few truly major variants. Unlike in Luke, the text of Codex Bezae appears to have evolved naturally. This is perhaps not surprising; Matthew is usually the first and most-quoted gospel. It influenced the others rather than being influenced by them. It would seem likely that we have it very nearly as it was written (c. 80 C.E.?).

http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/TextHist.html
Paolo, this is good reading for you.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 12, 2021, 11:59:19 AM
Thank you for the link, Mike.

Other than that, I guess we will have to agree to disagree, then. I think there is *enough* evidence for a street preacher named Jesus/Yeshua/whatever, so I remain unconvinced of your view. That's fine, as you also admited there is a small chance that such a person indeed existed. This debate has made me at least entertain the possibility of a proto ''Jesus-myth'' theory, as well.

It was a fun ride. Thanks again! :)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 12, 2021, 12:45:04 PM
My pleasure, Paola.  You say there is enough evidence to support an real man.  Other than what you have given (which I refuted--at least in my mind), do you have any other evidence?

I really like the site I gave the link to.  It is the kind that one can go to for a few minutes (or hours--or days) and find interesting reading.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 06:02:35 AM
My pleasure, Paola.  You say there is enough evidence to support an real man.  Other than what you have given (which I refuted--at least in my mind), do you have any other evidence?

I really like the site I gave the link to.  It is the kind that one can go to for a few minutes (or hours--or days) and find interesting reading.

Did you just mistype my name? :D
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 06:04:14 AM
Also, this pointless pressuring of "give me more evidence" is getting rather stale and tiresome.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 13, 2021, 07:04:18 AM
I do think there is a small chance that there was a guy or two that could have been the origins of the oral traditions that eventually became Jesus. ...

Highly likely, many. Highly likely, there were many 'saviour' of the time who's started to some path to save their own tribe from some emperial oppression got executed for it by the local authorities. Crucifixion is the common way of execution. And as the tribe has tiny odds against the emperial power, probably none of them had support from administrative levels. Why would they support them? It's madness. You'll face death penalty, they'll kill everyone and you'll lose it anyway.

If you strip Jesus from its divine character, it is the simple, revolutionary man profile. You can create different versions of it; tie him to a royal blood line or just tell the story of a dirt poor young man with a single mother who goes out to save the world. Oldest story in the book. 2000 years is very little amount of time in human history, it is 1/6 of tiny bit of 'familiar' history we claim to have an idea before the unknown pre whole...so this this saviour plot had been established looong time before that.

They were just called heroes and they used to fight with hdyras, minatours or some sort of gorgons. Meaning...somebody killed a wild boar or bull somewhere or some bigger than usual snake and its become the tale of the day. It's a hit now. Well, you can have monsters so looong that at some point when life changes, scale grows, when the circumstances right, the story will be upgraded because it is not enough anymore. That's all we have been doing. Telling the same story over and over again.

But more than that what gets me all the time is the grossly arrogant, idiotic ways modern people underestimate the ancient world and its people. You'd think they did something to 'deserve' to be born in the high tech, hypermodern times. Ancient people are not retarded children. They are normal people. They are technically as smart as we are, they just don't have knowledge.

They even know most things are just fairytales and myths and how does that work in their own way. They probably know better than most modern people because they are in it, sync within nature. They also know that if the hero dies dramatically and come back for punishing the wicked, that's a best seller.

Romans are too advanced in social engineering to kill any men with serious support anyway. That man is very valuable and usable. They'd recognise a simple revolutionary idea talking to slaves and soldiers 50 years away. And they do. It was just the matter of time. Empire's lived too long compared to its culture, it is not freaking Ancient Egypt which is a funeral culture. It's Rome. It's profane; this world culture. And then there is also nothing 'wrong' with the Empire to begin with, we percieve it that way. And fit the saviour story in it. Because it was written as a story looking back. An average slave or soldier in ancient Rome doesn't think it is all unfair and everything can be changed into some better, progressive life, he thinks 'it's life'. He doesn't even have the vocabulary to think in those terms.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2021, 08:59:35 AM
Did you just mistype my name? :D
Probably.  That is the danger of using 10 thumbs to type with--and then mix in old age and, well, it is a wonder you can read anything I type.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2021, 09:02:40 AM
Also, this pointless pressuring of "give me more evidence" is getting rather stale and tiresome.
Of course it is for you, because you have not supplied any evidence that jesus was real.  So, backed into a corner would be 'stale and tiresome'.  Instead of basing any opinion on facts and not 'well that is what I believe', why not act like the skeptic you claim to be and make a decision based on facts?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 13, 2021, 09:09:04 AM
Probably.  That is the danger of using 10 thumbs to type with--and then mix in old age and, well, it is a wonder you can read anything I type.

Oh I must be 150 then. :ppp
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 13, 2021, 09:44:19 AM
Also, this pointless pressuring of "give me more evidence" is getting rather stale and tiresome.

Yeah, it is pointless because you are retarded. So either try to learn or fuck off. Your opinion on evidence doesn't mean shit.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 04:44:26 PM
Yeah, it is pointless because you are retarded. So either try to learn or fuck off. Your opinion on evidence doesn't mean shit.

You are the one who is a retarted dipshit. Mike hasn't answered half my points. Now go back to your mother's basement, fucktard.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 04:48:01 PM
Note that I was kind enough to concede that we should agree to disagree. Of course, the atheist dumbfucks here are too arrogant to grant even that small diplomatic point, and thus have to resort to childish insults.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
Yeah, it is pointless because you are retarded. So either try to learn or fuck off. Your opinion on evidence doesn't mean shit.

I will "fuck off" only when I want, retarded motherfucker.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 13, 2021, 05:06:00 PM
Note that I was kind enough to concede that we should agree to disagree. Of course, the atheist dumbfucks here are too arrogant to grant even that small diplomatic point, and thus have to resort to childish insults.
It's too bad you are an atheist--or claim to be--you talk and argue like a theist.  As far as I am concerned, and can tell by your so called responses, you are a theist.  A small minded, mean spirited, gutless, ignorer of facts.  Facts would hurt your poor little void in your head where you should have a brain.  So, in all kindness I say--fuck off and keep your meaningless comments to yourself.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: the_antithesis on February 13, 2021, 05:36:27 PM
Also, this pointless pressuring of "give me more evidence" is getting rather stale and tiresome.

Not "more" but "any."
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 06:25:00 PM
Not "more" but "any."

I already cited Josephus. You can play blind man if you want to.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 13, 2021, 08:57:48 PM
You are the one who is a retarted dipshit. Mike hasn't answered half my points. Now go back to your mother's basement, fucktard.

Citing Josephus doesn't mean anything. Mike didn't need to answer any of your posts to begin with. Because you haven't offered anything. And you can't follow what is going on here. You are retarded because you think if you push it long enough, people will accept your opinion or you. That is not going to happen. It's not just that you don't get it, you don't want or care to get anything here. So you'll stop whining about it. Your opinion on evidence doesn't mean shit.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 13, 2021, 10:03:50 PM
Citing Josephus doesn't mean anything.

Josephus is a non-Christian source who mentioned Jesus (not Bible Jesus, but *a* Jesus). Isn't that enough?

And I like to have the last word, or at least reach an agreement to disagree. But Mike keeps claiming victory. That's arrogance.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 13, 2021, 11:24:26 PM
Josephus is a non-Christian source who mentioned Jesus (not Bible Jesus, but *a* Jesus). Isn't that enough?

No. It's not a valid source. It's a religious text that has been copied and translated over and over again by religious scholars because it is a religious text. But then it does not even matter what they say. It is not a valid source today. It wasn't a valid source long time ago.

If you are after some sort of consensus, the Oxford Dictionary has removed Jesus from history entry to myth entry because while it has been obvious for a long time, now people are free to declare it as a collective, mythical character.   

Quote
And I like to have the last word, or at least reach an agreement to disagree. But Mike keeps claiming victory. That's arrogance.

You can't have the last word. All you are able to do is shit all over the board and celebrate. Nobody cares what you think or what you like. You have no intention of questioning anything. Do you honestly think you are the first person who brought this subject up in this forum? Or that you'll offer something so brilliant that people will start to think differently?

How do you start a sentence with 'I'd like to have the last word' and end it with calling someone else arrogant?  Mike was unnecessarily good to you in my personal opinion. And this the result. You should have been completely ignored after that saint tongue.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2021, 09:16:36 AM
Josephus is a non-Christian source who mentioned Jesus (not Bible Jesus, but *a* Jesus). Isn't that enough?

And I like to have the last word, or at least reach an agreement to disagree. But Mike keeps claiming victory. That's arrogance.
I clearly demonstrated that Josephus IS NOT a witness, for he did not write anything about your favorite hero.  Two sections of his writings are shown to have had material not written by him inserted into his writings and was supposed to be made to look like he wrote it.  But, apparently you don't know how to read---nor think.  You clearly act like a theist who pretends to be an atheist.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 14, 2021, 09:56:04 AM
I clearly demonstrated that Josephus IS NOT a witness, for he did not write anything about your favorite hero.  Two sections of his writings are shown to have had material not written by him inserted into his writings and was supposed to be made to look like he wrote it. But, apparently you don't know how to read---nor think.  You clearly act like a theist who pretends to be an atheist.

The point is, that's actually the 'legitimate' tradition of literacy of that age. :lol: There is written culture but it is verbal, not textual. That's what scholiasts did for example. Pen holders added stuff in margins all the time and as there was no publishing technology, they all made their own copies -that was the elemantary education, the initial part of scholarship; reading and studying texts by copying them and create your own edition, maybe one day a complete original one or an official 'critique'. Ideally a 'discourse'. That's basically the reason for the 'pseudo-insert name ' writers you see popping up here and there throught history. Some of them are even better; more advanced than their originals, some of them are just changed according to the understanding and the administration of the time. The most of the pics of the pages of Josephus' Antiquties in the net are the 'published' commercial ones from 15th century and later. The manuscript was written in the end of first century.

Furthermore, even after the Western invention of the printing press, foundation of universities, spread of literacy... the printers did editings. They have 'corrected' passages and text because they thought it was 'wrong' or 'incorrect'. Mostly, this was not even something done in sinister spirit to manipulate people, if you will, lol. that's the understanding of the times. There is no systematic education, any scientific method or tradition. The understanding of knowledge is something completely different. 

Even the 19th century texts are pretty much the same for us. Anything before modern state, two great scientific revolutions... Nope. It doesn't work. They all have been interpreted over and over again and written with the new set of concepts, replaced in new contexts and of course in new language.   

In my mother language, there is a very old phrase 'someone who's licked ink'. While it sounds ridiculous in English, it's literal for the old scholars, students because ink was licked when you need to correct or wipe out something from the page i old days and because that's how you learn, by writing. So an educated person is 'a person who's licked ink'. It's still used widely.

And the consequences of modern means of education; learning without 'licking' and 'writing' are probably awful. But it is another dicussion.


Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2021, 10:43:33 AM
I would like the above--but the like system is down.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 14, 2021, 11:00:55 AM
The question is interesting academically, at least to some.  Was there a kind of Jesus guy that the New testament was based on? It's something both atheists and Christians can toss around without fear of being proven wrong, and I do appreciate the rigorous research that goes into the problem, because without that rigorous devotion we can never arrive at the point where we realize that no one on Earth knows the answer.  That realization seems vital to me, whereas believing one knows the answer means nothing.

I generally stay away from the argument, because it does nothing to support the authenticity of the Bible or to undermine it.  My question that led me to my atheism has been concerned with one thing only, the only thing relevant to me when I was a child to the present day. Is God or the Jesus/god in the Bible real?  This idea that he is based on some itinerant street preacher is irrelevant.  I've met these types of preachers on city streets.  Most of them are crazy.  At best they are hopelessly lost while barking to the passing crowd.  However, the actual Bible Jesus would be of the highest interest to me if he were real.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2021, 12:16:46 PM
The question is interesting academically, at least to some.  Was there a kind of Jesus guy that the New testament was based on? It's something both atheists and Christians can toss around without fear of being proven wrong, and I do appreciate the rigorous research that goes into the problem, because without that rigorous devotion we can never arrive at the point where we realize that no one on Earth knows the answer.  That realization seems vital to me, whereas believing one knows the answer means nothing.

I generally stay away from the argument, because it does nothing to support the authenticity of the Bible or to undermine it.  My question that led me to my atheism has been concerned with one thing only, the only thing relevant to me when I was a child to the present day. Is God or the Jesus/god in the Bible real?  This idea that he is based on some itinerant street preacher is irrelevant.  I've met these types of preachers on city streets.  Most of them are crazy.  At best they are hopelessly lost while barking to the passing crowd.  However, the actual Bible Jesus would be of the highest interest to me if he were real.
The last sentence is why I put so much energy and time into trying to figure out the answer.  And I found an answer.  I don't believe I am right, but I think I am.  I put no stock in 'believing' anything.  I try to use reason and critical thinking in arriving at my answer(s).  And I use the historical method I was taught in college.  My senior thesis taught me quite a bit about the proper historical method and how to use it.  I studied the Donner party, with a focus on Keesberg, the 'cannibal' of the party.  This is the party that was stranded in the snow attempting to go from Reno to Sacramento using a short cut recommended to them by Kit Carson.  Anyway, 3/4 'rescue' parties (actually, salvage parties looking for the Donner's gold) from Sac. were sent out.  The last one found Keesberg; the party took him down to Sac. and labeled him a cannibal.  He took them to court in Sac. and won his case--he was awarded an entire dollar, but he did win.  The evidence is scant on cannibalism, and no evidence exists to suggest he killed anybody to eat them.  He is still considered a cannibal to this day, but not based on any evidence, just beliefs.

There very well may have been a wandering preacher by the name of Jesus.  Jesus was a very, very popular name in those days in this area of the world.  The name means 'savior' and the Jews of that time and place were desperate for one.  A group called the wandering cynics were quite common in those days as well, and acted quite a bit like Jesus was supposed.  They owned nothing and relied solely   on the kindness and handouts of those he preached to.  And their message was quite a bit like what Jesus was supposed to be preaching.  The Gospel of Thomas (known about for centuries, but first found in tact in 1945) is thought to be made up of what the wandering cynics taught.  This collections of sayings was thought destroyed by the early chruch fathers (propagandists par-excellent) chose what they wanted Jesus to say and then destroyed the documents.  It is so much easier to have Jesus say what they wanted if they could (and they did) every element of what this 'Jesus' said, where he lived and who he grew up with and then what he did.  Manufacturing a biography is so much easier when one can make any and all claims they want.

The singular element  that cinched it for me was the 'argument from silence'.  This is a silence that screams!  There is not a single witness, and not even the man himself or his followers at the time (they were invented as well) wrote anything about this supposed man.  That is evidence of the highest sort, in my eyes.  Jesus was invented, not out of whole cloth, but using models that were common in that place and age.  It seems they picked from the dying/rising from the dead hero/god that was popular then--there a dozens of them.  And from groups like the wandering cynics, which were common then.  It was common for the christians of that time and place to take over pagan holidays and sites to help the common person to be more accepting of their pitch. 

There is more I could state, but you get the idea.  Taken as a whole, this, for me, is very strong proof that Jesus, as portrayed by christians did not exist and was created by the early church.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 14, 2021, 12:50:16 PM
I clearly demonstrated that Josephus IS NOT a witness, for he did not write anything about your favorite hero.  Two sections of his writings are shown to have had material not written by him inserted into his writings and was supposed to be made to look like he wrote it.  But, apparently you don't know how to read---nor think.  You clearly act like a theist who pretends to be an atheist.

Maybe because English is my second language, I am not able to follow what you're saying? It's a possibility, I guess. I am Latino, don't you forget that. ;)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 14, 2021, 01:03:42 PM
Maybe because English is my second language, I am not able to follow what you're saying? It's a possibility, I guess. I am Latino, don't you forget that. ;)
Two languages--that is a good thing.  I have one--wish I could speak more, but too lazy at this point in my life to acquire another.  I do admire those who can speak and write more than one language. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 14, 2021, 01:56:50 PM
The last sentence is why I put so much energy and time into trying to figure out the answer.  And I found an answer.  I don't believe I am right, but I think I am.  I put no stock in 'believing' anything. 
I get that, Mike. I know you well enough to understand, and I think the same for myself.  Skeptics don't lay claim to the gift of omniscience as theists do.  We are mortal and not privy to absolute truth.  And I agree that Jesus is too similar to the myths existing of that era to be considered much more than a reflection of the ignorance and gullibility of the time. I think it even likely that a mortal Jesus existed back then, but never walked on water or turned it into wine, or did anything at all as written in the Bible.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 14, 2021, 08:24:46 PM
Two languages--that is a good thing.  I have one--wish I could speak more, but too lazy at this point in my life to acquire another.  I do admire those who can speak and write more than one language.

Thank you, Mike. I am especially proud of my English "proficiency" since it was 90% self-taught.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 15, 2021, 05:00:32 AM
Paolo. You want an exercise in fact vs fiction? How does history sound?

Read Umberto Eco's 'The name of The Rose'. DO NOT read anything about the book. This is very important for this to work. Stay away from the movie. Read the book. Think about it. Think about the story it is telling. Who is telling of what story happened when?

Then make a short research on the book and read about how the novel was constructed.

This could be a way of trying to reverse the damage done by the Da Vinci Code culture a bit.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 15, 2021, 07:13:41 AM
Meh, frankly it doesn’t matter to me
 Hell they could find all the proof they want but it in no way adds a level of supernatural to his persona. The babble is filled with non sensical idiocy that defies simple common sense for a “god” to be so lame and incompetent.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 15, 2021, 04:18:20 PM
Paolo. You want an exercise in fact vs fiction? How does history sound?

Read Umberto Eco's 'The name of The Rose'. DO NOT read anything about the book. This is very important for this to work. Stay away from the movie. Read the book. Think about it. Think about the story it is telling. Who is telling of what story happened when?

Then make a short research on the book and read about how the novel was constructed.

This could be a way of trying to reverse the damage done by the Da Vinci Code culture a bit.

Thanks for the reading suggestion, drunkenshoe.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 16, 2021, 01:59:40 AM
Hey guys, I have another question: is it normal and/or consistent for an atheist to get interested in Christian apologetics books?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 16, 2021, 05:12:23 AM
For me Christian apologetics are very interesting, but only as an exercise in critical thinking and basic logic, and at that, none of it really tests the depths of anyone's intellectual capabilities.  I was able to spot that junk when I was less than ten, and at a time where I considered myself a good Christian.

I also like to listen carefully to the big name Christian debaters when they are performing, just to pick apart their logic.  I am also pretty good at recognizing how the dummies would buy their crap, because I think the best of the good theist debaters have pretty good skills with tailoring logical fallacies into their arguments.  Good Christian debaters do not shy away from fallacy.  They are quite creative at presenting them in such a way to obscure the failures.  They are like stage magicians, directing the attention of the audience away from what is really happening.

The odd thing is that the only reason to pay any attention to these guys, is because they even bother to do it.  If they just stayed quiet, no one would even notice the snake oil.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 16, 2021, 07:51:02 AM
Hey guys, I have another question: is it normal and/or consistent for an atheist to get interested in Christian apologetics books?
As much as I would consider reading Quack-anon theories.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 16, 2021, 09:01:41 AM
Hey guys, I have another question: is it normal and/or consistent for an atheist to get interested in Christian apologetics books?
First of all, there is no 'normal' for an atheist.  As an example, let's look at the word 'unique'--it means one of a kind, not another one like it.  So, something is either unique or not.  An object cannot be 'more', 'the most', 'kind of', unique.  Either it is or it isn't.  Period.  Atheist is like that.  It means non-believe in any and all gods.  Period.  It is not a 'belief system'.  Nothing else comes with that label.  Either one is a theist, who believes in at least one god or supernatural being, or an a-theist, or one who believes in no gods.  Atheists are not anti-theists.  We are not against theism; we don't believe in any gods--but we are not against those who do believe in gods.  That is not part of the definition.  Atheists are alike in only one thing--non-belief in god(s).   Therefore, there is no 'normal and/or consistent' way for an atheist to think or act. 

At one time, I was very interested in Christian apologetics books and articles.  I read quite a few of them and bits and pieces of a bunch more.  I still do, at times.  I did a little 'deep diving' into christian apologetics when I did a study of the bible and jesus.  But just because I did, doesn't mean all atheists would (or wouldn't).  It is akin to my loving baseball and ice cream.  Many people are bored silly by baseball and some don't like ice cream.  If you want to read that type of material, go for it.  If not, then don't.  It's that easy.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on February 19, 2021, 09:03:51 PM
I seem to recall that Flavius Josephus mentioned at least seven guys named Jesus in his works. I wonder, which was the God?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 23, 2021, 08:33:52 AM
As much as I would consider reading Quack-anon theories.

But if you know nothing about something, or haven't read anything about it (i.e., educated yourself), how can you criticize it or say it's invalid?

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 23, 2021, 01:39:54 PM
But if you know nothing about something, or haven't read anything about it (i.e., educated yourself), how can you criticize it or say it's invalid?


I’ve read the babble several times. Why would I consider someone’s opinion on it when it is very easily understood. The only people making excuses are those who find the need. I am not interested in wasting time arguing with someone who has already shown they have no intention of taking the babble at it’s word...as gawd said. They want it to mean what they say. And with well over two hundred denominations of Xian’s we could spend a lifetime arguing. Let them argue among themselves, I know what it says, because it says what it means to say.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 23, 2021, 02:01:41 PM
But if you know nothing about something, or haven't read anything about it (i.e., educated yourself), how can you criticize it or say it's invalid?
That is about how I view most of a skeptic's life.  Learn about it first.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 24, 2021, 02:58:45 AM
That is about how I view most of a skeptic's life.  Learn about it first.

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Just to be totally clear.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2021, 09:08:21 AM
Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? Just to be totally clear.
I just agreed with you.  It is not possible to make an intelligent comment on something one is ignorant of .  And I ignorant, I mean lack of knowledge, or the facts.  BTW, I view ignorant as simply the normal state of affairs for me.  I am ignorant of many, many more subjects than I am knowledgeable about.  But I can change that by looking into something, to gain knowledge.  Ignorant and stupid are worlds apart.  Theists land mostly in the stupid area; they are at best, willfully ignorant for they can know and usually do know, the facts of their religion but chose to be stupid, or simply live in the land of belief and don't make the effort to gain factual knowledge. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 24, 2021, 09:55:05 AM
I agree with the premise that in order to discuss anything one should have some knowledge of it. However, the idea that one NEEDS to understand one version of whack-a-do from another version of whack-a-do in order to understand what that person knows is bull shot from the get go is nonsense.

I claim that comic books are about fictional characters. If someone tells me that in order to claim this I need to compare notes with those who think that the Flash is actually faster than Superman, or that I need to understand which Planet the Silver Surfer or Thor comes from before I can call bull-shit...well that’s just bonkers stupid.

Religion is fiction. I don’t need to read all the versions to understand it or to be able laugh at it.  Was Rumplestiltskin a magician or a wizard? GTFO.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2021, 10:05:25 AM
I agree with the premise that in order to discuss anything one should have some knowledge of it. However, the idea that one NEEDS to understand one version of whack-a-do from another version of whack-a-do in order to understand what that person knows is bull shot from the get go is nonsense.

I claim that comic books are about fictional characters. If someone tells me that in order to claim this I need to compare notes with those who think that the Flash is actually faster than Superman, or that I need to understand which Planet the Silver Surfer or Thor comes from before I can call bull-shit...well that’s just bonkers stupid.

Religion is fiction. I don’t need to read all the versions to understand it or to be able laugh at it.  Was Rumplestiltskin a magician or a wizard? GTFO.
Yep and without a doubt (or a 'like' these days).  When one reads the bible, for example, and studies it, it becomes apparent (to those who accept facts) that it is a work(s) of fiction.  To accept anything it says one has to live in the world of 'belief'.  It proves nothing.  It's like trying to learn the 'real' birth place for Pacos Bill based on the stories about him.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on February 24, 2021, 10:52:55 AM
Yep and without a doubt (or a 'like' these days).  When one reads the bible, for example, and studies it, it becomes apparent (to those who accept facts) that it is a work(s) of fiction.  To accept anything it says one has to live in the world of 'belief'.  It proves nothing.  It's like trying to learn the 'real' birth place for Pacos Bill based on the stories about him.
We are biased to consider "faith" a positive trait in the religious context. Faith as such is not hope but an abandonment of rationality.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 24, 2021, 12:11:04 PM
We are biased to consider "faith" a positive trait in the religious context. Faith as such is not hope but an abandonment of rationality.
Yes, absolutely!  She is a person of faith!  Most use that as a huge compliment.  I view it as a mark of total stupidity and rigidity.  NOT a compliment!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2021, 10:26:33 PM
I’ve read the babble several times. Why would I consider someone’s opinion on it when it is very easily understood. The only people making excuses are those who find the need. I am not interested in wasting time arguing with someone who has already shown they have no intention of taking the babble at it’s word...as gawd said. They want it to mean what they say. And with well over two hundred denominations of Xian’s we could spend a lifetime arguing. Let them argue among themselves, I know what it says, because it says what it means to say.

According to the World Christian Encyclopedia, there are over 30,000 Christian denominations! All claiming to be The One True Religion, the only religion that really knows what God's Word says.

😜
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Unbeliever on February 24, 2021, 10:34:59 PM
We are biased to consider "faith" a positive trait in the religious context. Faith as such is not hope but an abandonment of rationality.
Yeah, bad people often use religion as camouflage by being seen to be pious, a person of deep faith, a real God-fearing person. They try to be considered beyond reproach, above any suspicion.

Apparently, it usually works.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on February 24, 2021, 11:17:35 PM
But if you know nothing about something, or haven't read anything about it (i.e., educated yourself), how can you criticize it or say it's invalid?
How much do you know about Islam or Hinduism?  Zoroastrianism?  Tengrism?  Aetherius Society?  Or any of the many, many religions out there in the world?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on February 26, 2021, 05:14:36 AM
Oh really?  Care to tell us what atheists believe?

(Take care not to ascribe to atheists beliefs that they might not necessarily have in common)

I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mr.Obvious on February 26, 2021, 06:26:03 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?

What ideals do you imagine the 'ideology of atheism' would hold?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 26, 2021, 07:01:17 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
There is no ideology or code of conduct to which all atheists adhere.[24]

Atheists do not believe in gods.  There is only that one thing that distinguishes atheists from theists.  There is simply not enough "stuff" involved in atheism for it to be an ideology. 

Ideologies are much more complex with rationales, structure, and a large array of claims about specific issues.  Atheism has no such structure.  An absence of belief in something requires no structure, no belief, and does not require anything else.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on February 26, 2021, 07:24:33 AM
What is the ideology of people who don't collect stamps?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on February 26, 2021, 07:33:58 AM
Fucking anti-stamp collectors......they are evil....probably kick puppies....oh who am I kidding...probably kick babies....
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on February 26, 2021, 09:30:17 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?
Look at that phrase:   ''ideology for bums''. 

Here is a definition of 'ideology'.
1. the body of doctrine or thought that guides an individual, social movement, institution, or group.
2. such a body forming a political or social program, along with the devices for putting it into operation.
3. theorizing of a visionary or impractical nature.
4. the study of the nature and origin of ideas.
5. a philosophical system that derives ideas exclusively from sensation.

From the above definition(s), atheism does not exist.  I am an atheist.  I do not belong to any social movement, institution or group that consists of a systematic way of thinking (or believing) about anything.  The ONLY common link I share with other atheists is that none of us believe in any gods.  It seems to me that the term 'atheism' was created by theists and used to attack those who don't believe in god.  All religions have a view that their 'ism' is the only correct one, so all enemies are attached with an 'ism' to provide an us vs them way to view all others. 

What is a 'bum'?  I view it as another label for a poor (in the economic sense) person.  My grandfather was a bum for probably a decade or so--he rode the rails between Seattle and Portland, doing odd jobs, or begging, for his food.  When he married and got a 'regular' job, he stopped being a bum.  Your buddy probably sees a 'bum' as something else, but not good.  Being a bum or not, has no bearing on being an atheist--or not. 

Paolo, be more skeptical of the labels your friends use.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on February 26, 2021, 11:39:36 AM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?
Theists, by definition, believe in one or more god(s).  Atheists, by definition, do not.  While Christians or Muslims or Hindus by definition subscribe to a system of beliefs inherent to their religion (aka believe the religion's central tenets), atheists do not because their term is essentially a catch-all term for everyone who isn't a theist.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on February 26, 2021, 11:49:06 AM
What is the ideology of people who don't collect stamps?

They were pin collectors. It was called 'Little moments' after their prophet Stanley Howler's moments. Apparently, some still do collect, not sure. They are called pinheads.

After the events of Going Postal, Howler converted to collecting stamps.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Simon Moon on February 27, 2021, 01:13:44 PM
I don't know. A friend of mine claimed that I shouldn't give much attention to atheism since it's a ''ideology for bums''. I merely automatically parroted his expression, without giving it much thought. You think it doesn't make sense to describe atheism as an ideology? Why?

Maybe you should not listen to your ignorant friend, and start thinking for yourself....

But how could atheism possibly be an ideology?

It has no: doctrine, leaders, dogma, rules, etc. The only thing that all atheists could be said to have in common with each other, is that we are not convinced that a god or gods exist. Full stop.   

As far as your friend's use of the term "bums", that is just an ad hominem, and less than useless to the conversation.

Let me make a late edit: Atheism is not even a worldview, let alone an ideology.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 01, 2021, 01:25:18 AM
Maybe you should not listen to your ignorant friend, and start thinking for yourself....

But how could atheism possibly be an ideology?

It has no: doctrine, leaders, dogma, rules, etc. The only thing that all atheists could be said to have in common with each other, is that we are not convinced that a god or gods exist. Full stop.   

As far as your friend's use of the term "bums", that is just an ad hominem, and less than useless to the conversation.

Let me make a late edit: Atheism is not even a worldview, let alone an ideology.

A fellow Portuguese atheist has written the following (my translation):

''In a comment to my previous post, Carlos Soares wrote that ''Atheism is an ideology, like any other''. He is partly correct. Some things that people refer when they call me atheist are my attitude of not worshipping anything, not having faith and not recognize anything whatsoever as divine. That, I admit, is as much ideological as having faith or worshipping some divinity, at least in the sense of ideology as a ''worldview''. In both cases, the believer and the atheist have a normative set of what's the best attitude to have. However, Carlos is mistaken to think that atheism is an ideology ''like any other''. In specific, it is very different from religious ideologies''.

He then goes on to explain those supposed differences, but I will not translate the whole post (for now). The original is titled ''It is ideology, but not like the other'', and can be found here: https://ktreta.blogspot.com/2014/04/e-ideologia-mas-nao-como-outra.html.

Happy reading/researching.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mr.Obvious on March 01, 2021, 01:32:09 AM
A fellow Portuguese atheist has written the following (my translation):

''In a comment to my previous post, Carlos Soares wrote that ''Atheism is an ideology, like any other''. He is partly correct. Some things that people refer when they call me atheist are my attitude of not worshipping anything, not having faith and not recognize anything whatsoever as divine. That, I admit, is as much ideological as having faith or worshipping some divinity, at least in the sense of ideology as a ''worldview''. In both cases, the believer and the atheist have a normative set of what's the best attitude to have. However, Carlos is mistaken to think that atheism is an ideology ''like any other''. In specific, it is very different from religious ideologies''.

He then goes on to explain those supposed differences, but I will not translate the whole post (for now). The original is titled ''It is ideology, but not like the other'', and can be found here: https://ktreta.blogspot.com/2014/04/e-ideologia-mas-nao-como-outra.html.

Happy reading/researching.

Still don't see what 'ideals' this supposed ideology would hold.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 01, 2021, 01:59:45 AM
Seems a lot like an example of a "I know you are, but what am I" debate tactic - where one projects one's own weaknesses on their opponent in the hopes that the audience sees them in the same light.

Most highly religious people are rather famously ideologically-driven, with heated debates on matters of dogma large and small.  There may have even been a war or two about it.

Saying that atheists are driven by a similar "normative set" (whatever that means) is merely an attempt to draw a false equivalence.  And again, we have yet to see any of these beliefs described in detail, which is rather telling.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 01, 2021, 02:38:40 AM
Not related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 01, 2021, 04:18:38 AM
We have Republicans, Democrats, and anarchists, socialists, and Libertarians all holding parts of their corresponding ideologies right here in the forum, but atheism is not an ideology.  It serves no purpose and has no goals.  It's about as formless and boring as anything could be, and it wouldn't even be a thing without theism.  We would be nothing more than people with a wide variety of different interests and opposing ideologies, none of which would have anything to do with having faith or worshiping anything. Atheism is nothing instead of something.  This confounds theists to no end.  How could anything they fear and despise so much be nothing?  It has to be something, otherwise they would be wasting all that fear and hate on nothing. They lack the imagination to see anything less than black and white.  They believe everyone has to love God or hate God, and theists do both, but it is beyond their comprehension that atheists do neither.  They see atheists as ideologists, and they can't even define the ideology they imagine, because much to their consternation, nothing is there.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 01, 2021, 05:46:33 AM
Paolo, 'ideology' is Not some evil form of alien life that escaped from some portal into our world. :lol:

But first, atheism is not an ideology. Ideology is not some idea itself either. It doesn't develop from mind or consciousnes by thought, but arise as a result of people's interactions, relations with the real, material world. It is the [study of] set of ideas shaped by those conditions, forces whatever you call it. So ideologies are based on action based political, economical and so social theories and most importantly intertwined with the LAW in a very complex way. When you offer/defend an ideology, you offer a political point of view which is FUNCTIONAL in terms of social, economical, political, legal institutions in a society.

Theism is something believed. A theist is not in the way into believing into something, he had already believed init at some point in the past. He recognises a divine power and mostly through religion, he believes in god's only authority, that his rules and laws cannot be questioned, criticised or replaced. Exactly like monarchy, oligarchy, right wing politics, dictatorships...which are the extension of theistic, religous systems, they generally dictate that social, economical, political, legal instutions in society must serve under god's rules. God is the only and absolute source of power and the clergy has the absolute power on people from how/what they should eat, shit, listen, watch, fuck, dress... So it is an archaic dysfunctional 'ideology'. It offers an origin, a source to its right of power.

The irony is, in modern societies where the basic human rights and the secular LAW is established and functional, individuals often talk out of their asses about ideologies as some evil conspiracy theories because in those societies exactly because of democratic ideology, there are no consequences of these actions. They're protected by the law system developed under the democratic ideology itself. The discussion about what do the capitalist ideologies actually contribute to these conditions in terms of apolitical discourse is another story. Because to be alienated from the concept of ideology, esp. capitalist-religous ideologies to the point of not being able to see that you can't live outside of an ideology in a human society is astonishing.

For example, in the absence of the general understanding of the democratic ideology which equals to the presence of fascistic, religous ideologies, the problems of personal opinions, religous debates, political discussion and criticism in any terms are easily remedied by a stone used repeteadly on a human skull. Nobody cares about your death unless you are a functional part of the system, there is no [secular] law.

Atheism is lack of belief in gods or deities...It does not dictate/offer any political, social, economical, legal solutions. It's not a system. The reason that it's become attached to certain ideologies like communism, socialism...blah blah because Marxism -which is not an ideology but philosophical theory- offers the criticism of the system from the point of concept of power in a nutshell and illustrates it with 'current' economical, political and social conditions which gave birth to certain kind of ideologies, various kind of philosophical systems and other theories. God, king, aristocracy, burjoise, middle class, working class, slavery...These are all attached to the concept of power. I.e: A policy declared before modern state by some monarchy is not a 'policy'  -doesn't matter how 'modern' it sounds or how many magna cartas they have- because monarchies do not make policies for people. People are not people, they are subjects. Do we need to go into laicisim and secularism from here?

According to Marx, ideologies exist in societies with class division. So yeah we all live in societies built on capitalist, oligarchic, religous ideologies, some with a smidge of democracy, some with a healthy bit enough to tip things over. There is no such thing as living outside of some ideology. 

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on March 01, 2021, 06:41:43 AM
Not related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
Probably most likely. Perhaps not as much as most. We know his nephew was.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2021, 08:49:43 AM
We have Republicans, Democrats, and anarchists, socialists, and Libertarians all holding parts of their corresponding ideologies right here in the forum, but atheism is not an ideology.  It serves no purpose and has no goals.  It's about as formless and boring as anything could be, and it wouldn't even be a thing without theism.  We would be nothing more than people with a wide variety of different interests and opposing ideologies, none of which would have anything to do with having faith or worshiping anything. Atheism is nothing instead of something.  This confounds theists to no end.  How could anything they fear and despise so much be nothing?  It has to be something, otherwise they would be wasting all that fear and hate on nothing. They lack the imagination to see anything less than black and white.  They believe everyone has to love God or hate God, and theists do both, but it is beyond their comprehension that atheists do neither.  They see atheists as ideologists, and they can't even define the ideology they imagine, because much to their consternation, nothing is there.
'Like'--where's the Like button--I keep pushing it. But yeah, the above!!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2021, 08:56:54 AM
Was Darwin a racist, and does evolution promote racism? – #DarwinDay (Hint … No)

https://www.skeptical-science.com/people/darwin-racist-evolution-promote-racism-darwinday2015/

A claim often asserted by some is that not only does Evolution endorse and promote racism, but also that Charles Darwin himself was a racist and openly labelled native Africans and Australians, as a savage, sub-species.

In fact, some have even attempted to incarnate this belief within law. In 2001 , US State Representative Sharon Broome of Louisiana proposed a resolution to condemn “Darwinist ideology” as racist:

BE IT RESOLVED that the Legislature of Louisiana does hereby deplore all instances and ideologies of racism, does hereby reject the core concepts of Darwinist ideology that certain races and classes of humans are inherently superior to others, and does hereby condemn the extent to which these philosophies have been used to justify and approve racist practices.

Link: http://www.legis.state.la.us/leg_docs/01RS/CVT3/OUT/0000IGY1.PDF

This racist claim is quite pervasive in some strands of belief, if you google the term, “Darwin The racist” you will receive a flood of almost half a million hits – and that is quite frankly insane.

So, how can we possibly get to the truth here? Well, lets simplify things a bit and split the accusation into two specific questions:

Was Darwin himself racist?
Does Natural Selection promote, or support racist thinking?
An initial temptation to grasp might be speculation that Darwin, like many others during the nineteenth century, held a view about the supremacy of the white race, but to do so would not be historically correct, because he was in fact an abolitionist and openly opposed the already existing eugenic concepts.

So what was Darwin’s view?

Upon reading, we quickly discover that he opposed the popular racist discourse and instead proposed that all human beings were the same species, and viewed the differences between human races as superficial. In fact he was quite unique in that respect, and  made no distinction between biological races but instead emphasised how similar we all were underneath the superficial differences such as skin or hair colour. Note also that he views all, regardless of external differences, to have essentially the same mind.

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole organisation be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these points are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans differ as much from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Fuegians on board the Beagle, with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate – The Descent of Man, Chapter VII

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/2300

This is a complete revolution, and was quite contrary to the popular thinking of that time, he clearly did not believe that “savages” were savage by birth, as many people did in his time, but rather that all people were relatively equal, and that the  differences between civilized Europeans and tribal peoples were due to knowledge and instruction.

So, the short answer to the question was Darwin racist is -------no!!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 01, 2021, 06:34:20 PM
Not related to the current subject at hand, but do you guys know whether Charles Darwin was racist?
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2021, 06:36:41 PM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
See--if Darwin were a racist, then he wouldn't buy tea from China, and the price of tea would fall and the Chinese would go into bankruptcy.  Or, something like that......................
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 01, 2021, 06:44:24 PM
Generally speaking, creationists are most likely to bring that up and only as a way to discredit evolution (only the truly morally pure can discover great truths about the natural world, lol) and thereby "prove" Christianity and "disprove" atheism.  Guilt by association by association combined with a truly bizarre false dilemma.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 01, 2021, 06:49:00 PM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
I'm thinking that if Darwin was racist, the Theory of Evolution would be invalid, and all that money spent on tracking the human genome would have been wasted.

Oops.  You basically posted that seconds before me.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 01, 2021, 07:09:20 PM
Twisted Darwin theory (note theory here means it has been tested and found to be factual) is used by racists to justify their racists views.  Survival of the fittest has a long history of being misunderstood and misused.  It does not mean biggest, baddest, strongest, most viscous--nothing like that.  It simply means that a species will thrive in a particular time and place by fitting in the best with that particular time and place.  Maybe the smallest works best or gives that species an edge of some sort.  Or the biggest or hardest to see or can see the best or has a beak that can feed off the most nuts/seeds...........or.......one can go on and on.  And it's the entire species we are talking about, and not just an individual.  Theists cannot or will not, see the factual flaws in their beliefs, so how can they be expected to understand anything about scientific theories????
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on March 01, 2021, 07:46:10 PM
....Theists cannot or will not, see the factual flaws in their beliefs, so how can they be expected to understand anything about scientific theories????
I think science reveals truths (e.g. the weak and unadaptable will perish) that often seem like harsh cruelty to us sentient beings. This is a such a human thing to do...this assigning morality to the realities of the material universe. A universe that promises nothing like justice.

To explain this apparent cruelty, the architects of the various religions had to make their gods (and devils) cruel...however then they also typically promise the week and meek will inherit the world. How convenient, comforting and untrue.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 02, 2021, 12:15:45 AM
What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Well, the thread has strained off course so many times, I figured one more off-topic question I was curious about would not do much harm.

As for those who claim that I am a theist, or even Christian (!), if there are any left, I leave you all with Kyle Gerkin's words: ''It is supremely arrogant to reclassify people's religious belief against their own claims[...]''. https://infidels.org/library/modern/kyle_gerkin/failing.html

Regardless, thank you all for the (sometimes even very detailed) answers.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 02, 2021, 01:29:27 AM
As for those who claim that I am a theist, or even Christian (!)
What did you say that gave people that impression?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 02, 2021, 02:13:45 AM
What did you say that gave people that impression?

Apparently, I made some very mild claims that a historical Jesus existed, something websites as ''secular'' and ''atheistic'' as Wikipedia claim it's an academic consensus (mind you, these are not Christians who are claiming this). I think this Mike guy in particular has insulted me several times over this (to the point of ridiculously calling Jesus ''my favorite god'' or some shit along those lines).

*awaiting anxiously for pedantic comments about how I used the word atheism wrong YET AGAIN*
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 02, 2021, 04:58:35 AM
Paolo. You are making certain mistakes which will ensure you to wallow in your current position. They are not unique to you. They are very common, actually that is the deal for everyone in general.

Your new found status doesn't make you feel good. The old one did. You are looking for a guarantee, some sort of absolutism if you will, at least something equivalent to those feelings familiar to you. Because belief offers that. Maybe in theory, you know this can't be the case with rationality, but knowing something and feeling the absence of something you are used to while living through that is two very different things.

You probably miss the feeling of being a part of some eternal, warm, safe, bigger than oneself and bigger than sum of humanity idea. The evil will be punished, the good will be rewarded, everything happens for a reason. What's there not to like? But at some point it's not enough for this and that reason, you realise it is not what's happening. But something happened. It's not really important what or when it was, but it just doesn't work anymore. Frankly, it's very unlikely that this is the story of the existence, isn't it?

You know what people start to do generally at that point? They first start looking into other belief systems, religions then certain kind of 'philosophies', ideas and maybe find something expressed differently, but in short time eventually they find out they are all the same, and that intial feeling of lack of bliss and depression which drove them from belief to belief, creeps back in. Because doesn't matter what kind of bliss belief systems offer, doesn't matter how successful they are, you need to believe in them to work. (That's why religous beliefs are often regarded as drugs.)

After that, this time people generally start to carve another path -an  individual one- dismiss all the virtual representations of belief systems,  institutions, traditional practices of worship, ritual, ceremonies or even the scripture, but try to dig into the relgious acummulation to find something forgottten, a real essence hidden deep somewhere beyond everyone's reach. There must be something. It can't be all 'meaningless'. As far as I understand you are making circles around this zone.

You probably love doing this. Finding conversations of the sort on the net, poking here and there, is it this or that, see but there is this here...etc. According to the descripton of your current position this would be  the best way to give yourself a respite. You are neither there nor here, you don't feel like you have any 'responsibility' in this zone, you are 'out', and at the same time it feels like you are doing something about both. And probably you will want to do it over and over again. First of all, if you really need this, if this is about some sort of a depression, go on.

But if it is not, again according to your own explanation of your position, it sucks and you want to go out. It sucks for any sentient, intelligent being in this position. But the reality is you are just beating air, so you can comfortably go on stalling because it feels safe. It's not. It's nothing. It's a delusion.

You should stop reading about religious history, religions...anything about belief systems. You need to do something? Read popular science books. And by that I mean science books. NOT self-help. Not what passes for evolutionary science in reddit. NOT some 'we are all one with the universe and science totally agrees with it, lets group hug' books. Read about physics, cosmology, biology...evolution. Don't tell me you do. If you are refering to Darwin's personality traits (?) and 'Darwinism' in relation to evolution, you are at the wrong address. And next stop from there is trying to hate Darwin because 'what the fuck happend back then with Wallace, man' without even coming close to the real material.

You need to accumulate knowledge for yourself and spend time with it, so you could have an experience of it. That's what learning is. You don't google, watch a video or read pages with names of historical figures and then learn something. Learning is a hard process. The fact that you understand what the sentences are telling you, does not mean you are learning them. Ideally, buy the book, take it in your hand and read it.

(I'm not a 'book vs e-material freak', I love my kindle very much and I read online all the time. But I know what I am saying when I say read certain material the traditional, hard way. You need a natural 'distance' between this kind of knowledge and your self. Get a pencil. Not a pen. Take notes on your book or on some notebook, underline...use an eraser when necessary. Try to write it down when it gets difficult. Have a physical relationship with the material. This is very important.)

Heads up. If you have passed the threshold, you'll never feel that safe, warm, bliss ever again. Because it is fake. Little children feel that sort of bliss while playing pirates in the backyard. And the lucky ones at that. Life does not have any meaning lived that way. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 02, 2021, 07:03:15 AM
What did you say that gave people that impression?
Apparently, I made some very mild claims that a historical Jesus existed, something websites as ''secular'' and ''atheistic'' as Wikipedia claim it's an academic consensus (mind you, these are not Christians who are claiming this). I think this Mike guy in particular has insulted me several times over this (to the point of ridiculously calling Jesus ''my favorite god'' or some shit along those lines).
No, historical Jesus was not it.  That was just a topic which Mike knows a lot about, and where you had a lot of knowledge gaps.  It's an area that Mike likes to talk about, while for you, it's just one of those, "Yeah, but..." philosophical responses.

What happened when you came here was that you caused a lot of suspicion, because you acted like a Christian.  You did not lay your cards on the table, and I could not count the times, Christians (and Muslims) have shown up here acting like they were seeking knowledge, and then feigning a fake epiphany that you found God while listening to atheists.  When you act all enigmatic, it mimics a common ploy theists use when they come here to poke the hornets nest, get stung, and then play the Christian persecution card; "Atheists are so mean.  They picked on me."  Maybe it's old baggage left over from your pre-conversion days.  And I know from my own experience, that divesting one's self from that bullshit is not an easy task.  The brainwashing we got from our parents, schools, and churches haunted some of us for years, and many of us no longer have the patience for it.

This is an atheist forum, not an "I dunno, maybe there could be a god" forum.  This is an "If you have proof, put it on the table" forum.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 02, 2021, 09:40:05 AM
What did you say that gave people that impression?No, historical Jesus was not it.  That was just a topic which Mike knows a lot about, and where you had a lot of knowledge gaps.

I had no gaps in my knowledge. If I had, I would have asked questions. I was (and I am) pretty sure of what I said. Mike was the one who made errors, such as identifying ALL FOUR Gospels as ''Synoptics'' -- when in fact only three of them are. So, if anything, he was the one who had gaps in knowledge, or at least got basic stuff wrong.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 07, 2021, 12:33:05 AM
You did not lay your cards on the table

What part of ''direct question'' from the OP you had a hard time understanding?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on March 07, 2021, 04:15:35 AM
What part of ''direct question'' from the OP you had a hard time understanding?

You point out that you are questioning and want to learn, but you are trying to catch fundamental things out through trivial nonsense without even trying to learn. That's an attitude we know very well, we have seen it countless times.

It could be the language barrier, your emotional position, some depression you say you are in...but most of the time you don't sound like someone with a genuine curiosity to learn. Yeah, it is hard. It's actually harder than you think right now. But if you ever get the hang of this some day, you'll see why 'atheists are assholes' and at the same time with why is that da pinnacle of bullshit of labels as they come. Then you won't be able to unsee that ever again.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 07, 2021, 05:12:26 AM
What part of ''direct question'' from the OP you had a hard time understanding?
You mean this?
Paolo:  "Direct question: among others, has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
I assume you think this is a direct question because it has the structure of a question; i.e. it begins with "Has, and ends with a question mark. "?"  OK, it's a question, but it is not a direct question because it reeks of hidden agenda.  It's more than a question and implies so much more.  It seems to be hiding something.

The reason I pick this up as "not laying your cards on the table" is because no one here can prove a negative. As a skeptic, you should already know you cannot prove a negative.  What you call a question here is actually an invitation to engage in nonsense.

But if you still think I should answer that question, my response would be:  Why would I care about some preserved tongue in a Catholic Church that may or may not belong to some ancient saint?  Why would I care about saints in the first place?  And if it does belong to St. Anthony, why would I care about that?  And finally what idiocy would compel the clergy to keep it around?  Widows and widowers don't keep the tongues of their dead marriage partners around the house, or the tongues of their favorite dog.  The whole thing rings of religious stupidity.  Why would I see such a discussion as worthy of a response when the question can't even be answered?

It's not important to me, and if it is to you, let the Catholic Church prove its authenticity.  And if they could do that, my response would be, "Yeah, OK.  So what?"
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 11, 2021, 08:53:23 AM
You mean this?I assume you think this is a direct question because it has the structure of a question; i.e. it begins with "Has, and ends with a question mark. "?"  OK, it's a question, but it is not a direct question because it reeks of hidden agenda.  It's more than a question and implies so much more.  It seems to be hiding something.

It's ''direct'' in the sense that is pretty straightforward. And it should, therefore, be easy to answer.

The reason I pick this up as "not laying your cards on the table" is because no one here can prove a negative. As a skeptic, you should already know you cannot prove a negative.

But wouldn't the ''miracle'' be positive evidence? Not that I am saying it's true, but let's just assume it is.

Anyway, I meant not for this question to be some sort of ''challenge to skeptics'', I simply meant something like: has this been ''debunked'', like say, in a MythBusters episode kind of way? I genuinely just wanted to know.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2021, 10:15:24 AM
Cannot prove a negative?  Yeah, you can.
You Can Prove a Negative:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

"The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."

"It depends in part on what you mean by "prove." The word has a variety of meanings. By saying something is "proved," I might mean that it is established beyond all possible doubt. Or I might mean it has been established beyond reasonable doubt (this is the kind of proof required in a court of law). Can we establish beyond reasonable doubt that unicorns have never inhabited the earth? True, the history of our planet has been and gone, so we can no longer directly inspect it. But surely, if unicorns did roam the earth, we would expect to find some evidence of their presence, such as fossils of unicorns or at least of closely related animals from which unicorns might plausibly have evolved. There is none. We also have plenty of evidence that unicorns are a fictional creation, in which case, it's surely reasonable for us to conclude that there never were any unicorns. Indeed, I'd suggest we can prove this beyond reasonable doubt."

In the above paragraph, substitute Jesus for unicorn.  From my studies, it has been proven to me that both Jesus and God are fictions.  The lack of any credible evidence that shows the Jesus of the christians ever existed is proof.  This is a case where the lack of evidence is proof there is no evidence, hence the accounts of Jesus are all fictions and propaganda.  The same for god.  Just no evidence.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 10:36:53 AM
Anyway, I meant not for this question to be some sort of ''challenge to skeptics'', I simply meant something like: has this been ''debunked'', like say, in a MythBusters episode kind of way? I genuinely just wanted to know.
It's not the skeptics job to debunk every silly or extraordinary claim the Church makes.  It is the responsibility of the Church to prove it true.  Since they can't, they try to foist the responsibility on others to prove they are wrong.  This is a common tactic of theists when debating.  And then they get all high and mighty like they won a debate, probably because they are too stupid to understand that nonsense requires proof of, not proof against.

You do the same thing, and then try to recover by saying, "I'm only asking."  You find an absurd claim and ask others to prove it wrong.  YOU should prove it wrong rather duck the responsibility yourself.  Or better yet, prove it's right.  Then it's case closed, finalized, the matter settled, and you would have accomplished something.  Learn to think for yourself rather than set yourself up as a nonsense nuisance asking others to rise to your silly questions.  Do you wonder why  you have not been taken seriously here? 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 10:55:39 AM
Cannot prove a negative?  Yeah, you can.
You Can Prove a Negative:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/believing-bull/201109/you-can-prove-negative

"The fact is, however, that this supposed "law of logic" is no such thing. As Steven D. Hales points in his paper "You Can Prove a Negative," "You can't prove a negative" is a principle of folk logic, not actual logic."
Paolo should now address all further questions to you.  We will all enjoy seeing you prove his negatives.  I am not up to the task myself, and we will all be happy for you to take on the challenge.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2021, 11:40:34 AM
Paolo should now address all further questions to you.  We will all enjoy seeing you prove his negatives.  I am not up to the task myself, and we will all be happy for you to take on the challenge.
I have 'proven' Jesus did not exist in these threads.  Note, I did not say I would set out to prove all negatives.  What I said was that the suggestion that we cannot prove any negatives is not so.  It is a popular saying in that I've heard it myself all my life.  And I pretty much went along with it.  That is until I was deeply into my Jesus research.  I changed my mind about the idea that we cannot use the lack of evidence for a Jesus as any kind of proof.  It seems to me that a total lack of evidence is indeed, proof there is no evidence.  Therefore the lack of evidence for a christian jesus is proof he did not exist.  Same line of reasoning for the unicorn in the above post.  The same thing can be said for the existence of any god.  Having said the above, I am ready and able to change my mind about any of it if somebody can supply some evidence that what I have said is inaccurate. 

I will be happy to tackle any and all questions from Paolo--if I'm interested.  The same for any other question, from any other source.  I am just tired of hearing the statement that the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence of anything.  Why?  Because it is not correct.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 11, 2021, 02:17:58 PM
I am just tired of hearing the statement that the lack of evidence cannot be used as evidence of anything.  Why?  Because it is not correct.
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 11, 2021, 05:38:05 PM
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.
Yes, I agree with almost all of what you said.  The key to the whole thing is that in your 'subjective understanding' it  isn't far enough beyond a reasonable doubt.  But it is in my subjective understanding.  And that is all I can hope for.  I have learned long, long ago using logic and reasonable thinking with a theist will get one nowhere; they deal only in belief and faith.  So, the study I undertook was for my own understanding and I did not have any illusion it would persuade a single theist to my point of view.  I realized it was for my subjective understanding and it convinced only one--me. 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:55:33 AM
I've also read this position before.  You are correct and it isn't a big leap to see that there are a minefield of exceptions and caveats in that over simplified "rule" about negatives, but I don't think the claim was intended to pedantically correct, and that most skeptics, except for Paolo and others, understand that it applies to the unprovables where there is no evidence. 

It's the classic theist gambit when they have no proof to ask for proof against, thinking that at a minimum, it puts their argument on equal footing with unbelievers, and this is what I think most skeptics understand.  But once again, you are correct; Some negatives can be proved.

But I don't go there. I've seen atheists offer proof that there is no god, but I remain unimpressed. God concepts are crafted in a way that they cannot be dealt with through logical objection.  The fallacy of apologetics parries all objections with on the spot solutions that eventually terminate with "God is beyond human understanding," the last defense in the theist house of cards and the ultimate claim that cannot be proved or disproved, but solves any and all objections, at least in the mind of the Pope.

In my mind all Jesus arguments become irrelevant when we come to the part where we must identify "which Jesus?"  The Bible Jesus or some ancient zealot that may or may not have been named Jesus, but never the less went about the countryside yelling about Doomsday doesn't lend credibility to the Bible Jesus or no Jesus.  I'm pretty sure it was likely, even more so in ancient times, that some unknown soothsayer with no access to medications for schizophrenia probably existed, but not necessarily.

I agree that you can prove some negatives if you have enough information to formulate proofs.  Whether there is enough to disprove "a" Jesus, not the Bible Jesus, is something in my mind that requires more than courtroom standards for "beyond reasonable doubt," which is less than scientific standards would require. I do agree strongly that the lack of credible documentation of a Bible Jesus or even some distant cousin upon which the myth was built, is a very strong case against the Bible Jesus.  But it doesn't meet my subjective understanding of beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it did, I still can't see why it would be relevant to a skeptic.

That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 09:59:46 AM
It's not the skeptics job to debunk every silly or extraordinary claim the Church makes.  It is the responsibility of the Church to prove it true.  Since they can't, they try to foist the responsibility on others to prove they are wrong.  This is a common tactic of theists when debating.  And then they get all high and mighty like they won a debate, probably because they are too stupid to understand that nonsense requires proof of, not proof against.

You do the same thing, and then try to recover by saying, "I'm only asking."  You find an absurd claim and ask others to prove it wrong.  YOU should prove it wrong rather duck the responsibility yourself.  Or better yet, prove it's right.  Then it's case closed, finalized, the matter settled, and you would have accomplished something.  Learn to think for yourself rather than set yourself up as a nonsense nuisance asking others to rise to your silly questions.  Do you wonder why  you have not been taken seriously here?

I just asked a question. Is that so hard to understand?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 12, 2021, 10:03:27 AM
That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?
No.  They are both true.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 12, 2021, 10:08:46 AM
I just asked a question. Is that so hard to understand?
It's a stupid question.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on March 12, 2021, 10:35:37 AM
That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

What do those two sentences mean to you?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 12, 2021, 10:54:33 AM
It's a stupid question.

Perhaps you should learn about your own skepticism first. You can't appeal to mere common sense to say that an intact tongue is ''nonsense''. That would beg the question of what ''nonsense'' consists of in the first place. Now, that's stupid.

Perhaps you could explain/justify what nonsense is to you?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on March 12, 2021, 07:32:39 PM
Perhaps you should learn about your own skepticism first. You can't appeal to mere common sense to say that an intact tongue is ''nonsense''. That would beg the question of what ''nonsense'' consists of in the first place. Now, that's stupid.

Perhaps you could explain/justify what nonsense is to you?
Can’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 12, 2021, 09:57:33 PM
Can’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.
I'd expand that to anything supernatural (ghosts, demons, angels, etc) or claims of physical feats beyond what the human body is known to be capable of (i.e. shapeshifting, walking on water unaided, ESP, inedia, etc)

If any of that stuff were to be verified, it would blow open human knowledge and earn its discoverer a huge reward and incredible notoriety.  Silence.  Centuries of silence.  Lots and lots of claims, just no one willing to step up and prove it.  The inevitable provisional conclusion is that it's just people making stuff up.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 13, 2021, 02:51:46 AM
Can’t speak for SGOS, but pretty much anything with the word Bible in it.

I misspoke. I should have said ''how do you justify that an intact tongue is nonsense''?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on March 13, 2021, 08:41:02 AM
I misspoke. I should have said ''how do you justify that an intact tongue is nonsense''?
Don’t think I said an “intact” tongue is nonsense, I do not jump from A to Z and claim it is a sign from a god. Of all the things a god could do, and the best he can offer is an intact tongue that is relatively unknown of? Not impressed with such a pitiful performance.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 18, 2021, 02:15:58 AM
No.  They are both true.

How so?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 18, 2021, 08:21:40 AM
SGOS: No.  They are both true.
 
How so?
You seem to think your two statements way back are opposites and contradictory, but I won't bother explaining it to you, because I'm getting tired of this.  If you believe they are opposites, explain to yourself why you think they are.  You are also free to amuse yourself by explaining why one of the statements of your concern is not true if you wish. You can formulate your own beliefs on your own.  Maybe you will get it right or maybe not.  That's what happens sometimes, but at least you can own it.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 18, 2021, 02:49:50 PM
That is an interesting discussion. Wasn't it Carl Sagan who said that ''absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''? But wasn't he who also said that ''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''?

So was he, in your opinion, contradicting himself?
How is the Sagan standard (aka the basic burden of proof and the heart of skepticism) allegedly contradicted by the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? (Sagan is criticizing the fallacious argument from ignorance - "I've never been to Australia, therefore Australia does not exist")

If for example, I were to claim that I went out walking and saw a dragon, should you accept my claim at face value?  If you said that you were out at about the same time and place and didn't see a dragon, and I retorted that just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would that convince you that dragons are real and that I saw one?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 18, 2021, 03:39:03 PM
How is the Sagan standard (aka the basic burden of proof and the heart of skepticism) allegedly contradicted by the statement that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence? (Sagan is criticizing the fallacious argument from ignorance - "I've never been to Australia, therefore Australia does not exist")

If for example, I were to claim that I went out walking and saw a dragon, should you accept my claim that at face value?  If you said that you were out at about the same time and place and didn't see a dragon, and I retorted that just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, would that convince you that dragons are real and that I saw one?
I think he is saying that...

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
and
''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''

are mutually exclusive, which would make one of them false and a contradiction. 

The problem is they are both true, not mutually exclusive, not opposites, and related only through half of a thought.  I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis.  Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 18, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
Quote
I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis.  Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.
If that's the case, what's he doing wasting his time chatting us up about it??  I don't know jack about St Francis or tongue preservation or the process of biological decay.

Take it to the press, take it to scientific organizations, take it to the James Randi foundation.  If genuine, it would make headlines, baffle scientists, and win a ton of money.  After winning fame and fortune, then he can talk to us at his leisure.  If verified, I'd have no choice but to side with the experts and concede at the very least to a medical anomaly.  Bring more in, and I'd have to change my perspective even further, especially if these anomalies are closely associated with only one religion.

Fame and fortune and crow-eating from skeptics await.  What's the holdup?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on March 18, 2021, 05:11:41 PM
^lol
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on March 18, 2021, 11:00:10 PM
I think he is saying that...

"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
and
''extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence''

are mutually exclusive, which would make one of them false and a contradiction. 

The problem is they are both true, not mutually exclusive, not opposites, and related only through half of a thought.  I think he would like to believe the absence of evidence justifies believing a pickled tongue belongs to St Francis.  Ideally, it would be the "extraordinary evidence" he seeks to justify Catholic claims about the tongue.

No, it is much more simple than that. The first represents total abandonment of skepticism; the second demands total devotion to it. At least at first glance, that's my interpretation.

And this is another question entirely. It has nothing to do with the question posed in the op.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 19, 2021, 02:49:39 AM
No, it is much more simple than that. The first represents total abandonment of skepticism; the second demands total devotion to it. At least at first glance, that's my interpretation.
That's a very incorrect interpretation.  The first is a counter to the argument from ignorance (a fallacy and essentially pseudoskepticism), while the second is an affirmation of skepticism and the burden of proof.  In both cases, his stance is against dogmatism.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on March 19, 2021, 03:10:09 AM
Also, it's really hard to get an accurate understanding of someone's stance from a measly couple soundbites.  I recommend you check out a clip or three from Sagan's Cosmos tv show.  It won't take long and will yield an excellent primer on scientific skepticism in a very clear and consice way.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on April 20, 2021, 10:43:08 AM
That is not how this logic, evidence, and rationality thing works.

It is not up to skeptics to 'disprove' any such claim, it is up to those making the claim to provide their case (demonstrable and falsifiable evidence, and reasoned argument) for their claim.

Until those making the claim that this 'relic' is indeed: tongue tissue, ancient, was dug up after a body decomposed, belonged  to 'St Anthony', and, the only way it could have survived intact for so long is a 'miracle', I have no justification to accept the claim.

NEXT...

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN A SKEPTIC OR ATHEIST COULD NOT HAVE ADDRESSED OR REFUTED THE CLAIM! AN ARTICLE COULD HAVE EXISTED FOR ALL YOU KNOW. THIS WAS SIMPLY A QUESTION, NOT A 'TRAP'!!!

I am sorry I was misunderstood.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: OrangeDon on April 22, 2021, 12:38:56 PM
"has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
Sorry, I am still FAR too busy disproving Zeus these days.  When I'm done with him, I plan to disprove Jesus, and then, Middle Earth.
Nobody told me how much work it would be to DISprove things that have never been proven.  Oh well... the life on an atheist.   :D  :D  :D
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 22, 2021, 01:12:17 PM
Oh well... the life on an atheist.   :D  :D  :D
We too have our cross to bear.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on April 22, 2021, 04:57:36 PM
"has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
Sorry, I am still FAR too busy disproving Zeus these days.  When I'm done with him, I plan to disprove Jesus, and then, Middle Earth.
Nobody told me how much work it would be to DISprove things that have never been proven.
I know what you mean.  When a giant trove of non-confirmation hits my non-agency, it takes forever for my non-colleagues to process it.  At this rate, we'll never prove a negative.  :P
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on April 23, 2021, 04:18:11 AM
"has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
Sorry, I am still FAR too busy disproving Zeus these days.  When I'm done with him, I plan to disprove Jesus, and then, Middle Earth.
Nobody told me how much work it would be to DISprove things that have never been proven.  Oh well... the life on an atheist.   :D  :D  :D

Maybe ''debunk'' would be better than ''disprove''. Hence why I put it in quotation marks. Apparently not subtle enough for the brainwashed.

When silly atheists are confronted with hard questions, their only retort is to argue semantics. Pathetic, really.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 05:56:05 AM
"has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
Sorry, I am still FAR too busy disproving Zeus these days.  When I'm done with him, I plan to disprove Jesus, and then, Middle Earth.
Nobody told me how much work it would be to DISprove things that have never been proven.  Oh well... the life on an atheist.   :D  :D  :D

:lol:

Don't disprove dragons please, I wuv them. :}
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: GSOgymrat on April 23, 2021, 07:07:45 AM
When silly atheists are confronted with hard questions, their only retort is to argue semantics. Pathetic, really.

The claim is when the crypt containing the corpse of a Portuguese Catholic priest who died in 1231 was opened in 1263, priests found his body had been reduced to dust and bones, but his tongue was intact and life-like. Which is more plausible:

- This is a story that has been exaggerated over several hundred years by people who are motivated to justify their faith.
- This is a complete, premeditated lie committed by the Catholic church.
- This is a hoax committed by an individual who, for whatever reason, decided to plant a preserved tongue inside the crypt without the church's knowledge.
- The people who prepared his corpse were by some means able to preserve his tongue.
- By some process consistent with the physical laws of the universe the tongue did not decompose.
- A supernatural being decided to magically preserve the tongue of this priest for reasons unknown.
- The Christian god decided to preserve the tongue to communicate to his flock that he exists.

I don't believe a story passed down for hundreds of years by superstitious people who are highly motivated to believe this magically preserved tongue is evidence of their particular god. There is nothing I find compelling about this story.

Woah! Finally a post that contains actual substance and not just meaningless ad hominem. This deserves a more detailed response than I am able to give right now, but rest assured, I will give this proper attention. Thanks.

Patiently awaiting your response.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 23, 2021, 07:51:24 AM
Maybe ''debunk'' would be better than ''disprove''. Hence why I put it in quotation marks. Apparently not subtle enough for the brainwashed.
Debunk/Disprove   <- This is semantics.

When silly atheists are confronted with hard questions, their only retort is to argue semantics. Pathetic, really.
You are the one arguing semantics here.  And yes, it is pathetic.

You are responding to what the Orange Don said:
Quote
"has anybody ever 'disproved' the intact tongue of St. Anthony back in Italy? Has any atheist/skeptic ever tried to?"
Sorry, I am still FAR too busy disproving Zeus these days.  When I'm done with him, I plan to disprove Jesus, and then, Middle Earth.
Nobody told me how much work it would be to DISprove things that have never been proven.  Oh well... the life on an atheist.
He was not arguing semantics.  The word is put in a scare quote, because it's an irrelevant word describing something you see as necessary to further your argument, not his.  What the Don is saying it that there is no need to argue an irrelevant issue just because YOU are obsessed with it.

If you require any proofs for or against, it's your responsibility to provide them.  This has been explained to you theists (or fake skeptics if you prefer that) so many times that it is tiresome, but it goes right over your heads, and you guys continue to demand proof of non existence just like petulant children even though your needs can never be satisfied (there is no proof).  So like petulant children, you manipulate a response by pretending to be stupid.  And then you proudly call your opponents "brainwashed" and "pathetic" because you have nothing left to say, except, "Prove it's not true," for the umpteenth time.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on April 23, 2021, 09:02:50 AM
There are many holy relic body parts for parishes to fight over...The head of St Catherine of Siena, The holy foreskin of cheezus, the blood of St Januarius, The finger of St Thomas, bodies of St Mark and St Cecilia and the Head of St John the Baptist.....They put a bone in a gold box, it has to be true!
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/18/1384794551415/The-Head-of-Saint-John-th-009.jpg?width=445&quality=45&auto=format&fit=max&dpr=2&s=f29644c21234a6a9b2ba6b2d9e5dfa92)
How pedestrian it is for the great god to prove his existence by preserving a part of a dead saint instead of say...fixing child starvation? Yes, the Church has always embraced and explains (often needless) suffering as a signal of faith. Suffering brings you closer to the lord, let's all suffer together, Yay !!!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on April 23, 2021, 09:23:38 AM
Maybe ''debunk'' would be better than ''disprove''. Hence why I put it in quotation marks. Apparently not subtle enough for the brainwashed.

When silly atheists are confronted with hard questions, their only retort is to argue semantics. Pathetic, really.
It's this kind of stuff that makes me think you are not as neutral as you purport to be and in fact hold strong opinions on the subject of theism/atheism that you decline to share for fear that they'd be ridiculed.

Perhaps that fear is justified, but it is still a lack of candor bordering on bad faith.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 10:18:00 AM
Maybe he has a tongue fetish. Paolo, do you have a tongue fetish? You can be straight with us, we are all weirdos. :p
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on April 23, 2021, 11:44:53 AM
Also odd that the catlic church always seems to be the one with all this weird shit going on. Ever notice that? The church with the graven images all over, that are forbidden, saints that are forbidden, all kinds of things specifically forbidden in the grand babble that run amuck in this wacky church.

Every movie with an exorcist? Catlic. Who do they call to fight off the devil? Catlics. Who has body parts and bedsheets laying about that are real bonafide miracles"......catlics. It seems like when the whole charade of crazy started some guy said to the rest...."you wanna see crazy? I"ll show you crazy" and went off and started the catlic church.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 23, 2021, 01:23:18 PM
The Catholic Church is kind of mainstream, with backing of the Vatican and the Pope, and even in middle of Salt Lake City with those Mormons, you can still find a Catholic Church, at least I assume.  But yeah, they do some crazy shit.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 01:40:48 PM
...Every movie with an exorcist? Catlic. Who do they call to fight off the devil? Catlics. Who has body parts and bedsheets laying about that are real bonafide miracles"......catlics. It seems like when the whole charade of crazy started some guy said to the rest...."you wanna see crazy? I"ll show you crazy" and went off and started the catlic church.

OK, this one got me. Phew. Ohhh
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 23, 2021, 02:00:09 PM
Is it this one? I knew it was cooked in some way. Ewwww. Ooof.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTLVAS2BB3XvR-M-f09yydI9f6iBrbg2wZoW8yHdtmbrxfi9GeerkrRwsX-gm5oFysSwA4&usqp=CAU)

Is this the rest?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CYYCkRnU0AEGn5w.jpg)

E: OK, this is the rest. Dudes's all over the place.

(https://images.thestar.com/aNx1Fj-bRa-NBm24hjl2NO-HGlQ=/1086x800/smart/filters:cb(2700061000)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2010/02/17/st_anthonys_bones_a_guide_to_the_living/st_anthonys_bones_a_guide_to_theliving.jpeg)





Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 24, 2021, 09:32:37 AM
(https://images.thestar.com/aNx1Fj-bRa-NBm24hjl2NO-HGlQ=/1086x800/smart/filters:cb(2700061000)/https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/news/world/2010/02/17/st_anthonys_bones_a_guide_to_the_living/st_anthonys_bones_a_guide_to_theliving.jpeg)
It's so thoughtful the way they laid that skeleton on a soft lounge chair cushion.  But his head looks kind of scrunched. Maybe they want him to be able to watch the television.  I worry that he might have stiff neck when he wakes up.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 11:06:42 AM
Oh my look at these heavenly bodies...Maybe they just like dressing skeletons in corny, old fashioned jewelry. What is with religious people and gold-jewelry? Other ones over here are pretty much the same in a different way...They put everything in gold foil. Yikes. Everything is in flashy gold colour, eye bleedingly over done. The desire and love of monarchy I guess...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2013/nov/19/heavenly-bodies-relics-catholic-saints

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/18/1384773608461/St-Friedrich-at-the-Bened-004.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=ec24c1963e142c14c49eb81a035e222f)

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/18/1384773625791/St-Albertus-----009.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=3db236b7a26cc834960cb1130533b6a6)

(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/11/18/1384773629340/St-Luciana-----010.jpg?width=1010&quality=85&auto=format&fit=max&s=024cfc3255230e6da47c033025dedd15)
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on April 24, 2021, 11:16:15 AM
The desire and love of monarchy I guess...

Is that it?  The love of monarchy?  Christians have always worshiped a monarch.  Still do--the language they use for Jesus and his dad are all royalty words.  Is it just so much easier when a monarch (who is always put on the throne by god) tells them what and how to do things?  Then they don't have to think and reason just do as they are told and god will have their back?  Is that it???  Too simple?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: drunkenshoe on April 24, 2021, 12:35:26 PM
It's simple in terms of desiring to hold onto their power. It's about power. It's not just that they love the monarchy, they want to live in some form of it so they could be related to it, be part of it. This way, they can stay as 'the royalty class' of the world.

Democray has a tendency to undermine that system bit by bit when functional. What good is it? What good is it when capital is divided and scattered between a diverse groups and big decisions are made by diiferent groups of people. If there is no distinction between them and the others what good is anything? 

I've known quite a few people like that all my life. People don't even need to be rich to feel and act that way. It's not just about Christians. Exactly the same thing is happening here. 

E: About gold and jewelery...I just don't get the urge to be dipped in it.

Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on April 26, 2021, 12:36:16 AM
Debunk/Disprove   <- This is semantics.
You are the one arguing semantics here.  And yes, it is pathetic.

He is arguing semantics in the sense that he is focusing on ONE word (disprove), and basing his entire argument off of that. Totally missing the point, or the rest of the post for that matter. It borders on dishonesty. I had to refine my wording because HE took issue with it. So, he was the one who brought up semantics first.

He was not arguing semantics.  The word is put in a scare quote, because it's an irrelevant word describing something you see as necessary to further your argument, not his.  What the Don is saying it that there is no need to argue an irrelevant issue just because YOU are obsessed with it.

Irrelevant? How do you determine whether something posted here is relevant or not? What criteria do you use?

Relevant or irrelevant for WHOM, exactly?

If you require any proofs for or against, it's your responsibility to provide them.

So I ain't allowed to even ask if something has been talked about before here?

You call yourself a freethinker? Are you kidding or something?

This has been explained to you theists (or fake skeptics if you prefer that) so many times that it is tiresome, but it goes right over your heads, and you guys continue to demand proof of non existence just like petulant children even though your needs can never be satisfied (there is no proof).  So like petulant children, you manipulate a response by pretending to be stupid.  And then you proudly call your opponents "brainwashed" and "pathetic" because you have nothing left to say, except, "Prove it's not true," for the umpteenth time.

This sounds like paranoia. You should take some meds, and learn to read properly in English as well.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on April 26, 2021, 12:39:25 AM
Also, I NEVER said, in all 27 pages of this thread, ''prove it's not true''. Nor I said anything that could be interpreted/read like that.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Hydra009 on April 26, 2021, 12:56:58 AM
Also, I NEVER said, in all 27 pages of this thread, ''prove it's not true''. Nor I said anything that could be interpreted/read like that.
You literally said disprove in the OP.  One of the more memorable definitions of disprove is "prove to be false"

You can always jump up and down and stamp your feet while claiming that's not what you meant and that the other person is misconstruing your ...I dunno if I'd call it an argument, exactly.  Just Asking Questions, I suppose.  But it's a pretty weak defense (to a pretty weak argument).  Say what you mean and mean what you say or this sort of "misconstruing" is going to keep happening.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Paolo on April 26, 2021, 01:53:15 AM
You literally said disprove in the OP.  One of the more memorable definitions of disprove is "prove to be false"

You can always jump up and down and stamp your feet while claiming that's not what you meant and that the other person is misconstruing your ...I dunno if I'd call it an argument, exactly.  Just Asking Questions, I suppose.  But it's a pretty weak defense (to a pretty weak argument).  Say what you mean and mean what you say or this sort of "misconstruing" is going to keep happening.

Now that I stopped to think about it, I remember why I posted the OP. I was looking for proof against the tongue, since I was curious about the subject. So, from what I understand, you seem to think that negative proof either isn't possible, or that I shouldn't care about this matter in the first place?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 26, 2021, 07:24:44 AM
He is arguing semantics in the sense that he is focusing on ONE word (disprove), and basing his entire argument off of that. Totally missing the point, or the rest of the post for that matter. It borders on dishonesty. I had to refine my wording because HE took issue with it. So, he was the one who brought up semantics first.
I like watching you slide, glide and weasel.


Irrelevant? How do you determine whether something posted here is relevant or not? What criteria do you use?
Good places to start are if there is any relevant facts that support a claim being made, or if any facts change what we know about reality.  Mostly facts, provable facts, and demonstrable truths would be good.


Relevant or irrelevant for WHOM, exactly?
For one, to the interests of the forum you are in at any given time.  Questions like, Suppose a guy jumped out of a helecopter at 10,000 ft, landed on the street, and walked away?" are not of any interest here.  If that actually happened it might generate a few interested replies. 

In your case, "Suppose those bones belong to St Elmo?" is unimportant.  We don't care if Elmo was a Catholic saint, nor whether or not those bones belong to him.  It's not relevant, because the assertions change nothing.  Maybe they give quivering chills to believers in the supernatural, and they might be highly interested.  You are directing your concerns to people who don't care.  Why here?  It's clear that this is highly important to you.  You need to find an interested audience.  This is the last place you should be to serve your needs.  You should go to priests and ministers. They may give you the answers you are looking for.

So I ain't allowed to even ask if something has been talked about before here?
That's irrelevant. You would do it anyway.

You call yourself a freethinker? Are you kidding or something?
This sounds like paranoia. You should take some meds, and learn to read properly in English as well.
lol
Freethinker is misnomer that is marginally useful because most people casually agree on who that crowd is, but I and most other freethinkers don't wander around thinking freely.  It's quite the opposite.  Our thinking is very much restricted by reality and rules of logic.  We do not allow ourselves the liberty to examine any thought that burbles from our subconscious that we think it's cool or neat.  What you call free thinking is a very restrained approach to our natural world.  It's quite strict actually.   To me freethinking, not the word, but the actual process, is the domain of religion.  Wild thoughts are only excluded by long standing dogma and disapproval of the clerics and peer pressure.  But if some belief catches on it spreads like wildfire.  That's freedom.

And it is catching on in New Age religions, maybe even more, where small groups are allowed to have a greater variety of thoughts that defy the encumbrances of what you call "freethinking."  The very word "skeptic", puts a hard lid on actual free thinking.  To be skeptical is not to be free as per your definition.  It's quite the opposite.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on April 26, 2021, 07:42:11 AM
I think "freethinker" was originally meant to imply that some person was free from the dogma of a church.  In general usage, I'm not sure that is what is currently intended.  "Freethinker" was probably meant as a pejorative, but the intended target embraced it, and that changed the intention and meaning of the word.  Actually, it's not a good word if you like precision in your language, I don't think.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on April 26, 2021, 06:25:49 PM
Now that I stopped to think about it, I remember why I posted the OP.

Well.......at the “end of the day” it is important that we can remember why we did something “30 days after doing it”.....CORRECTION!!! 5 months later!!!! 🙄😁
 Thank goodness your not completely insane.....🥸
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Susan on August 23, 2021, 11:42:41 AM
That shit about the saint's tongue is the real deal, though. I've been to Italy and I've seen it!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Cassia on August 23, 2021, 12:03:43 PM
That shit about the saint's tongue is the real deal, though. I've been to Italy and I've seen it!
OK great, I am heading down to the church to sign up, thanks!
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on August 23, 2021, 01:09:06 PM
That shit about the saint's tongue is the real deal, though. I've been to Italy and I've seen it!
So what?  A tongue proves god???  Actually, that is probably the best piece of evidence that can be offered.  I think it is funny that the christians profess to be against idol worship.  Yet there are thousands of 'icons' of 'saints' that are worshiped.  And crosses with a dead man on them are not idols--of course not. And you (yeah, I am assuming you are a christian) eat this man's flesh and drink his blood--and yet christians condemn other cannibals.  When you were in Italy, did you eat a tongue sandwich? 
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mr.Obvious on August 23, 2021, 03:08:41 PM
Just offering my two cents, but I read Susan's comment like a sarcastic joke, not an earnest opinion.

Perhaps I'm an optimist, but with no other clue to her person, that's where it lead me.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on August 23, 2021, 04:25:07 PM
Just offering my two cents, but I read Susan's comment like a sarcastic joke, not an earnest opinion.

Perhaps I'm an optimist, but with no other clue to her person, that's where it lead me.
I guess I've read one too many trolls. :))  I could have been a touch too sarcastic?  Hmmmm................can one be too sarcastic???
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on August 25, 2021, 08:44:57 AM
I'm quite sure Susan was being sarcastic, because I like the name "Susan".
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: SGOS on August 25, 2021, 08:51:18 AM
On the other hand, keeping a dead man's tongue around for people to gawk at is quite disturbing.  That it happens in a place of worship is actually creepy.  How many horror movies are centered around religious creep factors?
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: Mike Cl on August 25, 2021, 09:54:07 AM
On the other hand, keeping a dead man's tongue around for people to gawk at is quite disturbing.  That it happens in a place of worship is actually creepy.  How many horror movies are centered around religious creep factors?
If one thinks about it, just about all the 'teachings' of the religious are creepy.  Eating the flesh and drinking the blood of some dead guy, who actually offed himself for  self sacrifice for me(that's very creepy)?!  And on and on.
Title: Re: Catholic Church "Miracles"
Post by: aitm on August 25, 2021, 12:36:54 PM
I would not be surprised that a good screen writer could put the babble into a Conan the barbarian movie and change the names of the prophets and peeps would be none the wiser and cheer for Conan.