427 posts / 0 new
Last post
jonthecatholic's picture
Why does it need to be the

Why does it need to be the scientific method?

Kataclismic's picture
Because your method of

Because your method for determining fact from fiction is full of flaws.

Sheldon's picture
We're 4 pages in, so I'm a

We're 4 pages in, so I'm a little puzzled what you're waiting for? Present the best evidence you have. I already told you what the standard was, objective evidence. Why did you waste everyone's time with a subjective claim for a miracle that was centuries old and unfalsifiable if you have convincing evidence?

"Because I can show certain evidence but if you won't accept them anyway, it's pretty futile on my part."

That doesn't sound like christianity to me, and you obliged to try and save us? If you have convincing objective evidence why would anyone reject it? Though I must say your standard so far suggests you don't know what objective evidence is.

LogicFTW's picture
Setting aside the "from bread

Setting aside the "from bread and water" part of it and just focusing on the "it has not decayed!"

It would seem to me, if the church had something that points to a miracle, they would be falling all over themselves to finally be able to point to it in a way that was a near bullet proof from objection as possible.

They could arrange testing done on this "miraculous anti decay" property with them watching every step of the test. So it does not decay? How about if we take the stuff out of the glass container, put it in a warm humid environment with normal decay related bacteria and cultures near it. Just speeding up the normal decay process greatly, so we can get answer on the anti decay properties within a few hours/days? Whole thing can be done very carefully and with the church watching every step. Live stream the test on the web so anyone in the world can watch, with multiple well known scientist known to be skeptical towards god present. If it truly is magical and cannot decay we would all know in a few days and the proof would be in the high definition uninterrupted live stream with multiple well respected scientist on both sides.

"But it is holy, it would be religious sacrilege!" Seems like a real convenient excuse, especially if they did allow the test to go in this manner they would win quite possibly millions of converts to their particular religion. (Think of all the souls saved from damnation!)

bigbill's picture
The teleological argument

The teleological argument this shows that there appears to be a universe that is designed. So I attribute that to there being A GOD; Further the addition of the 1st century sage Jesus Christ. Who through his miracles and life death and resurrection, prove to me that he was God. Our Calendar that we currently use goes back to Jesus Life. And when you look around you see in art and music and scenery the oceans and then man and women. I don`t think this came from non-design or by naturalistic means. How can you explain consciousness and the brain leading up to the mind. So I accept the top down premise for a Deity; God who is order instead of just disorder and randomness that naturalist espouse.

Sheldon's picture
The title of the OP isn't

The title of the OP isn't arguments, and it isn't opinions, it's EVIDENCE. So this....

The teleological argument this shows that there appears to be a universe that is designed. So I attribute that to there being A GOD;

...is irrelevant. That aside it's an appalling argument that attempts to define a deity into existence, makes flat out assumptions, and, is based on a premise that would also need to be objectively verified, namely that the universe is fine tuned, physicists and cosmologists and the wider scientific world don't share your opinion.
"Further the addition of the 1st century sage Jesus Christ. Who through his miracles and life death and resurrection, prove to me that he was God. "

No evidence there at all, just a succession of claims. Do you even know what objective evidence is?
" I don`t think this came from non-design or by naturalistic means. "

Then demonstrate some evidence Billy, and stop making endless claims as if they represent objective evidence.
"How can you explain"

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, that's a common logical fallacy, it's an appeal to ignorance, and I said right at the get go I'd dump all over these. Go away and learn the difference between an argument and objective evidence, then learn what it means when an argument is based on a logical fallacy. It's tedious to have to keep explaining basic principles like common logical fallacies to you, this is a debate forum, not a pulpit. If you want to preach BILLY, take it where it will be appreciated.

bigbill's picture
Well maybe you don`t

Well maybe you don`t understand my reply to your post I gave arguments for evidence in talking about the brain and other criteria. So I guess you have no answer to my statement on conscience what is it and how it functions? you like others on this web like to give ad hominem attacks, please refrain from this. Just deal with the subjects at hand and leave all the other garbage behind .thanks Billy1

Sheldon's picture
"Well maybe you don`t

"Well maybe you don`t understand my reply"

I did and do, hence my response above. As I said, you don't know the difference between objective evidence and an argument. Just as you seem unaware of the consequences of basing an argument on logical fallacies. You also seem not to know what common logical fallacies are, the clue however is in the name.

"So I guess you have no answer to my statement"

Au contraire, and I have given it a second time for you, despite your unabashed duplicity.

"you like others on this web like to give ad hominem attacks,"

Nonsense, nothing in my post is ad hominem, another unabashed lie, or more likely you don't know what ad hominem means.

"Just deal with the subjects at hand and leave all the other garbage behind "

Ahahahahahhahahahahhaha, good one Billy, now have you any objective evidence for a deity? Only that *IS* the subject at hand, and it is *YOU* who is posting garbage that has nothing to do with that. You haven't offered a single cogent word in response to anything I wrote, quelle surprise, so this is another irony overload.

Sky Pilot's picture
agnostic believer,

agnostic believer,

If Yeshua was still wiggling on the cross you might have a point. After all, a thousand years is just a day to him, right? But since he isn't you're coming across as just another superstitious twit who believes in silly ancient ethnocentric Middle Eastern Jewish religious fairy tales. How insane do you have to be to think that a homicidal maniac zombie will save you from your "sins"?

As it says in Titus 1:13-14 (NKJV) = "13 This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14 not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth."

Grinseed's picture
AB, you attribute the

AB, you attribute the teleological argument to show the universe is designed and "there being A GOD".

The claims of Jesus's miracles and life death and resurrection "prove" to you he was God.

Art, music, scenery, oceans, man and women, consciousness, the brain, the mind, and order, convince you to "accept" a Deity, a God.

You are definitely not agnostic. Whatever shortcomings of the catholic church made you despair in your earliest posts they didn't make you agnostic. You still believe. You should change your moniker to Believer or B..

And FYI the calendar we use today, the Gregorian, introduced by Pope Gregory XIII in 1582 doesn't go back to "Jesus Life" (sic), but the Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar (BCE33?) altered by Augustus to include a 31 day August, does and neither caesar believed in Jesus.

algebe's picture
@Grinseed: neither caesar

@Grinseed: neither caesar believed in Jesus.

And both Julius and Augustus became gods, so they should know. (LOL)

Sheldon's picture
I'm afraid facts are anathema

I'm afraid facts are anathema to AB, they bead up and roll off. He appears every few days, empties his bowels on one the threads, wipes his feet and leaves.

Kataclismic's picture
I don't need evidence, I have

I don't need evidence, I have faith.
But don't try to tell me it's a con, you'll need evidence to convince me of that.

Sheldon's picture
Since the reticence of

Since the reticence of apologists is predictably defining on objective evidence, and catholic frauds seem to be being offered in their place, lets take a look at some so we can get feel for just how unreliable and how lacking in integrity that church and religion has been throughout its history when perpetrating fraudulent "miracles".
"In the Sicilian region of Italy, in the town of Palermo, on the mountain dubbed Pellegrino, nestled inside a cave, inside a church, inside a small shrine, lie the bones of Saint Rosalia.

Her story is rare in the annals of Catholic sainthood, as she wasn't martyred in a particularly grisly way. Instead, when she was a young teenager, Rosalia devoted herself to Christ and lived as a hermit in a cave until dying, of natural causes, in 1160. There, her bones lay for centuries, until a plague struck Palermo in 1624. Residents began having visions of "the Little Saint," and a hunter, looking for any kind of cure, went to her cave, dug up her bones, and paraded them through the streets. The plague miraculously ceased. That was good enough to get her sainthood, turn her former abode into a place of worship, and for Sicilians to get on their knees and pray to this particular set of bones."

>>So far so good, now read on...

"Just one problem: The bones in Saint Rosalia's shrine belong to a goat.

This revelation came in 1825, from British geologist William Buckland, who, while on his honeymoon, made an examination of the relics and determined them to be "non-human." (Buckland also concluded during the trip that dark spots on another church's floor being presented as "drops of martyr's blood" were, in fact, drops of bat urine.) But rather than fixing the mistake and getting rid of the goat remnants, the church has the same bones on display today."

and it goes on....

""In Sicily, they will fight you if you tell them the bones belong to a goat," said Paul Koudounaris. Koudounaris is an author and photographer specializing in macabre art. In 2013, he published Heavenly Bodies, which details the story of relics retrieved from Roman Catacombs in the 17th century. Relics are everywhere in Catholicism. The head of St. Catherine is on display in Siena, and vials of breast milk straight from the Virgin Mary's teat occasionally pop up. There are even rumors about the Holy Foreskin, a taut, wrinkly piece of the tiny Baby Jesus Himself.

"They had a warehouse in the Vatican, like that warehouse in Indiana Jones, and they had these relics all labeled. Here are three St. Valentines, here are four such-and-such, and they'd just send them off," said Koudounaris. "I've photographed at least six different [skeletons of] St. Valentines. It's one of the problems with the relic trade: There's not a lot of fidelity."

(I contacted various members of the Catholic Church for this piece, but none was willing to speak about the process by which relics were authenticated.)"

As I said I wouldn't trust the RCC farther than I could throw a small truck...

More here... https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/jmbwzg/the-weird-and-fraudulent-world...

bigbill's picture
Why won`t you deal with my

Why won`t you deal with my evidences for the God Polemic, I say that our conscience comes from God; You say absolutely zero, nada nothing. I sited other evidence an instead I`m not making valid evidences here. You will try any method to weasel out of my evidences. Even though you asked for it in the Forum post. Now that I state some evidences you hide behind your interpretation of logical argumentation. Stick with the subjects I gave you.

algebe's picture
@Agnostic believer:

@Agnostic believer:

What's the "God polemic". What do you mean when you say "our conscience comes from God"? Are you saying that people who don't believe in the Christian god have no conscience?

I think human beings have always had a conscience. We're born with it, and it's refined through our life in our families and society. When deists started to create gods and religions, they hijacked conscience and pretended that it came from their gods.

Unfortunately religion, especially Christianity, twists and perverts conscience.

Sheldon's picture
You've offered no objective

You've offered no objective evidence, and that was made clear to you already, and I explained why.

"I say that our conscience comes from God; You say absolutely zero, nada nothing.

That's a lie, I already explained as simply as I know how that that is a subjective opinion you have offered as a bald assertion, IT'S NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. I warned everyone at the start I'd be applying Hitchens's razor where it was apropos, and I have been very patient with you up until now, but from now on anything you assert without evidence will be dismissed without evidence.

This was what you said "How can you explain consciousness and the brain leading up to the mind."

Where is there objective evidence in that claim? It's just an appeal to ignorance.

"Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence") is a fallacy in informal logic."

It's cited by the way, not sited (sic), and no you have cited no objective evidence.

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Do you even know what a

Do you even know what a polemic is AB? "A polemic is contentious rhetoric that is intended to support a specific position by aggressive claims and undermining of the opposing position"
So love to see your 'polemic' here accompanied by evidence to back up the 'aggressive claims' and how you intend to 'undermine' an essentially null position.

Yes we will try any method to 'weasel out' your 'evidences as you don't supply any...oh you meant "weasel out OF?" Well supply some credible evidence and you will get reasoned replies.

Do you ever proof read or spell check your posts? Try highlighting a word and right click the mouse...a spell check is at the top of the menu.

Sapporo's picture
It is claimed that near

It is claimed that near Fátima, Portugal in 1917 up to 100,000 people saw the sun dance about the sky. Given that hundreds of millions of people around the globe did not witness the Earth being thrown out of the Solar System, were the Catholics lying or deluded, or were they in fact telling the truth?

Sheldon's picture
I remember someone calling

I remember someone calling the Atheist experience to claim they had evidence for god, and citing the Fatima "miracle". As is so often the case the caller had not bothered to research the claim beyond a prima facie look at the claim itself. Though as you point out it's pretty hard to explain why none of the rest of the human population in sunlight at the time saw anything.

algebe's picture
I've seen videos of

I've seen videos of experiments like that. A few people stand around looking up at the sky. Others soon join them trying to figure out what they're all looking at. The crowd grows exponentially. Then someone drops a hint that a flying saucer was sighted. Pretty soon everyone is looking for flying saucers, and a lot of them go home with memories of having seen them.

It's hard to fool one person. It's easy to fool 100,000.

Sheldon's picture
JoC "I've actually been on a

JoC "I've actually been on a search for evidence around mid last year and have been convinced by the evidence that I see. So I ask you, what kind of evidence are you looking for?"

Yet you have not posted any here? All we've had is a subjective claim for a "miracle" from an 8th century monk?

If you have objective evidence you find compelling why wouldn't you post it here, that makes no sense? Unless you know it's not really objective evidence at all of course, and are finding it compelling for subjective reasons? As you did with the unevidenced claim for a miracle, where no evidence was offered that the tissue had been miraculously transformed from wafer and wine.

Edited for spelling and grammar.

jonthecatholic's picture
This isn't an isolated case,

This isn't an isolated case, mind you. There are numerous others. Buenos Aires comes to mind as well. Scientific finding found that even extracting that part of the heart could only be done by a highly skilled surgeon and even then the sample couldn't be kept alive for more than a few minutes. You may look into it if you want.

Sheldon's picture
JoC, just link the peer

JoC, just link the peer reviewed research that evidences the transformation of the sample from wine and crackers into flesh. Then link the story of Templeton foundation finally awarding their million dollar prize for objective evidence of a supernatural event.

Then explain why the world of science hasn't noticed this happening.

It's a subjective claim from an 8th century monk. Nothing more...The fact they have some tissue samples tells us nothing.

mickron88's picture
i believe in christian god

i believe in christian god alright, i believe in allah too..and budah and krishna and to all of the 2996
they all created the earth and the universe and all you can think..

wait...what do you call a person who believes in all of the gods??
is there any name for them??

Tin-Man's picture
@Q Re: A person who

@Q Re: A person who believes in all of he gods

Holy shit, Q! That's awesome! I have never considered that. Damn good question, my man! Hmmmm..... How about an "Omnitheist"?

Old man shouts at clouds's picture
Too late TM already been

Too late TM already been coined
" Omnism is the recognition and respect of all religions; those who hold this belief are called omnists (or Omnists). The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) quotes as the term's earliest usage by English poet Philip J. Bailey: in 1839 "I am an omnist, and believe in all religions".

mickron88's picture

almost T-man u got it almost right

just googled the word Omnists, it really exist.
blows my mind old man..

and who says old man cant share new words?..haha

peace out

Tin-Man's picture
@Old Man Re: Omnitheist

@Old Man Re: Omnitheist

No shit??? That's actually a real thing? I had no idea! Seriously. Honestly, I was about half drunk when I made that up last night. LOL

Sheldon's picture
"English poet Philip J.

"English poet Philip J. Bailey: in 1839 "I am an omnist, and believe in all religions"."

Not sure why that needed a new word tbh. There are some perfectly good words for anyone claiming anything that stupid.


Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.