Catholic Church "Miracles"

[aitm]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Paolo]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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. 

[aitm]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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.

[Cassia]

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.

[Mike Cl]

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!

[Unbeliever]

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.

😜

[Unbeliever]

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.

[Hydra009]

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?

[Paolo]

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?

[Mr.Obvious]

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?

[SGOS]

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.

[SGOS]

What is the ideology of people who don't collect stamps?