Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Mark Shea makes a decent stab at the proposition that there is no contradiction:

http://www.catholicity.com/commentary/shea/00059.html

Moreover, the Catholic Church has traditionally been very reluctant to state who is in hell. Cormac Murphy O'Connor stated that while he'll exists, he hoped that it would be empty.

Regarding the Feeneyites, describing them as extremists was something of an irrelevant aside - they've been raising all kinds of trouble in New Hampshire and have been listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centre.

You are confusing the opinions of Roman Catholics as individuals with the beliefs of Roman Catholicism as such.

“[The most Holy Roman Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart `into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.”

Cantate Domino — Papal Bull of Pope Eugene IV 1441

Father Feeney was ex-communicated (if technically he really was) for Jew baiting and disobendiance and not for any dogmatic reason.

"

Morbert wrote: »

You have more to contend with than atheists who won't listen. You also have to contend with atheists who are doing the talking. A lot of effort has gone into careful arguments for why atheism is true and Christianity is false. More specifically, "new" atheism is a movement that is building a repository of literature that supports the consistency of the materialist worldview, the application of empiricism as a sound epistemic framework, and the inadequacies of traditional "evidence for God".

While I don't believe Christianity is inconsistent or incoherent as a belief, I do believe that all that is needed for atheism to flourish is social and economic stability, coupled with freedom of thought and speech.

A lot of effort has gone into Austrian economics and justifying it with careful arguments but that doesnt stop it from being irrational nonsense- the arguments of atheists are much more shallow than their ones. I dont believe for a moment that atheists are atheists for intellectual reasons; I do accept however that there are people who are not Christians for valid intellectual reasons. There are various non-intellectual reasons for people being atheists- some of them are very understandable, however in southern Ireland I think its clear that most of those reasons dont apply to most atheists- therefore we are dealing with a moral problem; therefore as Christians are duty is either to be silent or threaten the judgement of being condemned to the hell fire unto the ages of ages.

The Austrian school is NOT neo-liberal.

The last paragraph is a perfect reason why Theists shouldnt bother discussing these issues with atheists.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The difference between the Austrian "school" of economics and atheism is that neoliberalism is a belief system. Like christianity it assumes the thing it is trying to prove is true, and then builds the case around that assumption, including assuming other things which need to be true to also be true, ignoring contrary evidence and data, assuming correlation is causation and flat out inventing evidence when it has none.

Atheism does none of these things. It simply looks at avaliable evidence, and says "until we have better evidence which indicates otherwise, it is best to, for the moment, take the position that there are no gods". If it were proven tomorrow that there was some sort of god(s), then atheists would accept their existence.

tommy2bad wrote: »

Actually its exactly the Jansenist heresy. That Christ died for the saved only.
I never meant to impute the Jansenists themselves only used the term in reference to the specific heresy. Most of the heretical sects were pretty cool, I have a fondness for the Cathars myself.

But that wasnt really the reason they were suppressed was it?

They were suppressed for wanting a more democratic Church, women's rights, annoying the French monarchy, opposition to lilys and langour devotions and wanting to limit papal power- the Dominicians following Aquinas continued to teach basically the seem on Predestination and didnt get suppressed.

Christians should not be giving entertainment to atheists especially when God gets abused in the process.

This is totally different from economics- you choose to go the hell fire out of your hatred so be it. Economic policy isnt a personal thing- its a social thing.

Morbert wrote: »

Actually, I find the arguments for atheism or, more specifically, materialism to be quite compelling, and I am confident enough to defend my beliefs. To be sure, there are a lot of nonsensical arguments out there, but there are also a lot of arguments backed by well-established philosophical ideas.

But what I find perplexing is why you would not be willing to use intellectual arguments to refute atheism in the same way you would use intellectual arguments to refute, say, Austrian economics. Do you believe there is nothing to be gained in publicly and specifically stating why Austrian economics is nonsense?

Morbert wrote: »

Surely you must see how that is problematic. If you say atheism is based on hatred and insults, what will people say when they are exposed to atheism that isn't based on hatred or insults.

Let people be exposed to atheism. Im not stopping them.

But you personally if you die an atheist will pay for it.

What is called for on this thread is hell fire and brimestone-not telling those who loathe God and loathe Christianity that they are nice people who have only made a mistake like kids do at maths.

Geomy wrote: »

There's a of different bible's, which translation is the most accessible ?

Its best to go to the effort of learning Greek or Latin.

But if you dont have the time either the King James Version or the Douay Rheims version- probably best to get both so you can have a just balance.

Flee modern translations;they are filled with distortions.