International Over 70 Christians found beheaded in a church in Congo

Yeah it's just low tier reddit atheism. Emotion over logic.
And it's not to say that there aren't a lot of hypocritical Christians, because there are. But as was already mentioned, the presence of hypocrisy isn't an argument against the betrayed philosophy.
 
I agree with you. I think what the angle the other guy was trying to get at is this:

Look at the Sam Harris interview with Bill. They had a couple other panelists including Ben Affleck, who immediately started frothing at the teeth when Sam Harris said that Islam is the most dangerous religion.

The prominent atheists you mentioned, absolutely. Sam and Richard have both explicitly stated that Islam extremism is a much more concerning danger than anything in Christianity. I think what the other poster was trying to say is that Islam has tons of supposedly atheistic and liberal watchdogs ready to start baying as soon as anyone suggests that there is a problem.

In America it's cool to dunk on Christianity because nobody's going to do or in many cases even say anything to defend it. So it's open season.
Ben Affleck is a Catholic, not an atheist. Nicholas Kristof is a Christian. Michael Steele is a Catholic who actually spent three years studying for the priesthood.

What you're describing is an American liberal problem, not an atheist problem.
 
I have to disagree on the morality point, though I agree with the logical stance. Tying atheism to darwinism was easy when people thought that the cell was the smallest unit of matter. I think a lot of the devout atheists, for lack of a better term, take the stance of "well we know there had to be a cause but it can't be God." It's about as absurd as someone saying that it *must* be God. On that, I think God gets the advantage because "God" can mean and encapsulate a whole lot of things, including the idea of something so far beyond our scope of knowledge that it could only be described as people who encountered it as "God."

On the morality thing, I don't think you need to have God in order to set and profess norms or values, personal or societal. I don't even think that someone has to concede that such would be based on nothing. You can base it on the wellbeing of the human species. There's a theologian debater named William Lane Craig who technically "won" against both Hitchens and Harris, but I'd say it's only because he's seriously a master in that particular craft. One of his charges was that if there is no God, then a human being technically has no moral basis on which to claim that something as heinous as murder or assault is objectively wrong.

And maybe that's true but then you dive into the rabbit hole of the question: what IS objectively wrong, and I mean the actual specific definition? I'm surprised that neither of them ever flipped that question around and asked "Why would the existence of a God necessitate inherent morality?" If someone were to respond that morality comes from God, and that if God were not real you would not have the tendency to pursue morality, and that you have the morality given to you by God regardless of whether you have faith, you can at the very worst force a stalemate by saying "No it doesn't." You can make the case that even if you found irrefutable proof that there was no God, you would still want to help and love people.

At that point it's just a matter of angle. Either God is real, and all morality stems from him, and even the people who don't believe him are still imbued with his creation of morality, or-- God is not real, or at least does not have to be real, and our morality and inclination to adhere to morals is an evolutionary attribute.
Sure those are good points. I'm leaning towards some type of creating force whether you want to call it God, or nature or whatever, and yes it's also possible that God is very real, but he doesn't give a shit how be behave towards each other.

But in order to have "morality" that we can all agree on, we have to first accept the premise that we are different from other animals. We don't judge a baby eagle for pushing his weaker sibling out of the nest to get more food for himself because we just chalk that up to their nature, yet we hold humans to a completely different standard, and we need to ask ourselves why? If everything is just Darwinism and the only thing that matters is bettering our own lives and feeding our own kids, then why are we all repulsed by the person who defrauds an old lady out of her life savings to improve his own life? If it's all nature and Darwinism this action should be just as permissible as working a double shift at the factory, yet we all understand that it's not, so we have to ask ourselves why? This obviously leads us to the conclusion that we are in some way more divine than other creatures, so the logical conclusion is that there is some higher purpose that goes beyond just the basic Darwinian explanation.
 
Disgusting. Even though Christians are idolaters they don't deserve that.
 
I have to disagree on the morality point, though I agree with the logical stance. Tying atheism to darwinism was easy when people thought that the cell was the smallest unit of matter. I think a lot of the devout atheists, for lack of a better term, take the stance of "well we know there had to be a cause but it can't be God." It's about as absurd as someone saying that it *must* be God. On that, I think God gets the advantage because "God" can mean and encapsulate a whole lot of things, including the idea of something so far beyond our scope of knowledge that it could only be described as people who encountered it as "God."

On the morality thing, I don't think you need to have God in order to set and profess norms or values, personal or societal. I don't even think that someone has to concede that such would be based on nothing. You can base it on the wellbeing of the human species. There's a theologian debater named William Lane Craig who technically "won" against both Hitchens and Harris, but I'd say it's only because he's seriously a master in that particular craft. One of his charges was that if there is no God, then a human being technically has no moral basis on which to claim that something as heinous as murder or assault is objectively wrong.

And maybe that's true but then you dive into the rabbit hole of the question: what IS objectively wrong, and I mean the actual specific definition? I'm surprised that neither of them ever flipped that question around and asked "Why would the existence of a God necessitate inherent morality?" If someone were to respond that morality comes from God, and that if God were not real you would not have the tendency to pursue morality, and that you have the morality given to you by God regardless of whether you have faith, you can at the very worst force a stalemate by saying "No it doesn't." You can make the case that even if you found irrefutable proof that there was no God, you would still want to help and love people.

At that point it's just a matter of angle. Either God is real, and all morality stems from him, and even the people who don't believe him are still imbued with his creation of morality, or-- God is not real, or at least does not have to be real, and our morality and inclination to adhere to morals is an evolutionary attribute.
Your point raises an important discussion about the source and nature of morality. While it's certainly possible to ground moral norms in human wellbeing and social flourishing—as many secular moral theories do—the Catholic position is that such an account ultimately lacks the objective, transcendent foundation that many believe is necessary for genuine moral order.

From a Thomistic perspective, morality isn't merely about societal norms or subjective preferences. Instead, moral values are rooted in the very nature of human beings as created in the image of God. This means that objective moral truths exist, independent of human opinion, because they reflect God's own nature and order. For example, the idea that 'something cannot come from nothing' underpins not just cosmology but also the notion that there is an ultimate source of goodness and truth.

The argument that even if one could disprove God, one might still pursue care and love for others, does capture an important observation: many people have a natural moral sense. Catholic philosophy, however, would argue that this natural moral sense is a reflection of the divine image within us—a participation in the eternal law. In other words, even our natural inclination to love and help others is evidence of a moral order that points beyond mere human constructs. Without a transcendent source, one might say that morality becomes contingent, relative, or ultimately arbitrary, because it lacks an absolute standard.

Moreover, when we speak of norms based solely on human wellbeing, we often have to ask: why is human wellbeing intrinsically valuable? The Catholic answer is that human beings possess inherent dignity because they are created by God, and that dignity is not self-generated but bestowed by a Creator. Thus, the existence of God provides a grounding for morality that is both objective and universally applicable.

While a secular grounding of morality in human wellbeing can offer compelling practical guidance, Catholic philosophy contends that only a transcendent, divine source can adequately account for the objective nature of moral truths, making morality more than just a matter of personal or societal preference.
 
Ok so you think the creator explanation is nonsense, fine.

Now what about the alternative explanation, that everything we see around us, and all the planets and all the galaxies, all just came out of nothing, out of something smaller than an atom, for no apparent reason, with no real purpose... does that sound like logical sense to you?

I find that miracle more far fetched and more difficult to believe than all the miracles in the Bible, Quran and Torah combined.
I dont pretend to know the origins of the universe, I never will. Aspects of physics and math are simply beyond me.

However I have seen the practical and tangible manifestation of science and the scientific method. We all have, ever single day.

The various super- natural fables and fairy tales of all religious texts and stories I have heard or read, are all universally nonsensical and absurd.
 
It seems that rather than engaging in a genuine critique, you’re dismissing religion with broad, pejorative claims. Serious philosophical engagement requires more than simply labeling something as 'primitive' or 'nonsense'—it requires demonstrating why a belief is irrational or untenable. Many of the greatest minds in history—Augustine, Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, and more—found religious belief not only rational but compellingly necessary.

If you want to critique specific doctrines or moral failings, that’s fair, but you need to distinguish between the truth of a belief system and the failures of its adherents. The existence of hypocrisy does not invalidate a belief any more than bad scientists invalidate science. Likewise, dismissing religious texts as 'absurd' without engaging with their intended meaning, historical context, and philosophical depth is not an argument—it’s a rhetorical shortcut.

If you have specific critiques, I’d be happy to engage with them seriously. But if the goal is just to ridicule, that’s not a philosophical discussion—it’s just mockery."
He posed a question and I responded asking for specificity .

Frankly I dont even know what religion, if any specific religion he was asking about.
 
I dont pretend to know the origins of the universe, I never will. Aspects of physics and math are simply beyond me.

However I have seen the practical and tangible manifestation of science and the scientific method. We all have, ever single day.

The various super- natural fables and fairy tales of all religious texts and stories I have heard or read, are all universally nonsensical and absurd.
Ok but I'm not talking about any particular religious text, I'm just talking about the idea of a creator... some great force that made all you see around you, you don't need to call it God.

What seems more "tangible" to you, that all you see around you came from nothing and for no reason at all, or that it came from something for a purpose?
 
Agreed, it's always baffling to me how the supposed logical atheist types like Dawkins don't seem to see any problem with the most illogical explanation of all.

Then of course there is the whole morality question, if nothing has a purpose then how can one set of values be better than the next? If nothing has any meaning than how do they all still conclude that we should treat each other well, and that certain things are right and wrong?

Funny enough they deny Christianity, but they all live as Christians.


“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
- Richard C Lewontin

Humans take things on faith all the time. Religious people are just more explicit about it.
 
Why are threads on Islam or Buddhism never derailed by Satanists coming in rabbling on about their religion of 'atheism'?
Because it's in vogue to attack Christianity, and on the Islam question it's obvious, because they're cowards.

ob7ca.jpg
 
Because it's in vogue to attack Christianity, and on the Islam question it's obvious, because they're cowards.

ob7ca.jpg
And, ironically, it'll be the 'atheists' who squeal the loudest when they lose their Christian culture.
 
Ben Affleck is a Catholic, not an atheist. Nicholas Kristof is a Christian. Michael Steele is a Catholic who actually spent three years studying for the priesthood.

What you're describing is an American liberal problem, not an atheist problem.
Fair point my man
 
Your point raises an important discussion about the source and nature of morality. While it's certainly possible to ground moral norms in human wellbeing and social flourishing—as many secular moral theories do—the Catholic position is that such an account ultimately lacks the objective, transcendent foundation that many believe is necessary for genuine moral order.

From a Thomistic perspective, morality isn't merely about societal norms or subjective preferences. Instead, moral values are rooted in the very nature of human beings as created in the image of God. This means that objective moral truths exist, independent of human opinion, because they reflect God's own nature and order. For example, the idea that 'something cannot come from nothing' underpins not just cosmology but also the notion that there is an ultimate source of goodness and truth.

The argument that even if one could disprove God, one might still pursue care and love for others, does capture an important observation: many people have a natural moral sense. Catholic philosophy, however, would argue that this natural moral sense is a reflection of the divine image within us—a participation in the eternal law. In other words, even our natural inclination to love and help others is evidence of a moral order that points beyond mere human constructs. Without a transcendent source, one might say that morality becomes contingent, relative, or ultimately arbitrary, because it lacks an absolute standard.

Moreover, when we speak of norms based solely on human wellbeing, we often have to ask: why is human wellbeing intrinsically valuable? The Catholic answer is that human beings possess inherent dignity because they are created by God, and that dignity is not self-generated but bestowed by a Creator. Thus, the existence of God provides a grounding for morality that is both objective and universally applicable.

While a secular grounding of morality in human wellbeing can offer compelling practical guidance, Catholic philosophy contends that only a transcendent, divine source can adequately account for the objective nature of moral truths, making morality more than just a matter of personal or societal preference.
I don't think I've seen you around here but I'm glad you're here
 
And it's not to say that there aren't a lot of hypocritical Christians, because there are. But as was already mentioned, the presence of hypocrisy isn't an argument against the betrayed philosophy.
100%
 
Ok but I'm not talking about any particular religious text, I'm just talking about the idea of a creator... some great force that made all you see around you, you don't need to call it God.

What seems more "tangible" to you, that all you see around you came from nothing and for no reason at all, or that it came from something for a purpose?

You are asking me what seems more feasible?

One of the millions of supernatural deities told by man in various cultural mythologies created the cosmos, or some phenomena of time/space and physics beyond my understanding of science and the universe?
 
Why are threads on Islam or Buddhism never derailed by Satanists coming in rabbling on about their religion of 'atheism'?
Are there threads on here about Islam and Buddism?


Satan is product of the Christian mythology.

Hes not a part of those mentioned pantheon of deities
 
You are asking me what seems more feasible?

One of the millions of supernatural deities told by man in various cultural mythologies created the cosmos, or some phenomena of time/space and physics beyond my understanding of science and the universe?
I don't know why it's so difficult for you to read and comprehend a basic sentence, but let me put it in big letters so you don't miss it this time, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR RELIGIOUS TEXT... SOME GREATER FORCE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT GOD.

So yeah, that PHENOMENA you mention would fall into this category.

What's more feasible, some phenomena, OR everything out of nothing, suddenly and with no purpose or reason?
 
Are there threads on here about Islam and Buddism?


Satan is product of the Christian mythology.

Hes not a part of those mentioned pantheon of deities
"A shaiṭān or shaytān refers to evil spirits in Islam, inciting humans and jinn to sin by whispering in their hearts. According to Islamic tradition, though invisible to humans, shayāṭīn are imagined to be ugly and grotesque creatures created from the fires of hell."
 
Back
Top