MovieChat Forums > Politics > Churches fight to stay open as attendanc...

Churches fight to stay open as attendance dwindles


During the final Mass at the All Saints Parish in Buffalo, New York, on a warm Sunday in July, the priests encouraged the few parishioners who came to take comfort in holy scripture.

"For everything, there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven," the passage read.

On Earth, many parishes are accepting that it's time to sell their properties. As the person leading renewal and development for the Diocese of Buffalo, Father Bryan Zielenieski is one of many religious leaders across America who have closed houses of worship in recent years.

"We essentially went to half of what we used to back in the early 2000s," he told ABC News. "We lost about 100 parishes."

Zielenieski expects he'll need to shut down another 70 churches in what the Diocese is calling its "road to renewal." It's a very biblical name for the challenge facing churches: People just aren't going as much as they used to.

On average, more than half of the diocese's churches today are baptizing fewer than one person a month, and 59% of them are spending more than they take in, Zielenieski noted.


It's just a couple of generations before religion will not matter anymore.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/churches-fight-stay-open-attendance-171803480.html

reply

That’s really sad, but there might still be hope. A lot of young people are sick and tired of nihilism and are turning back to Christianity — especially the holistic, liturgical kind like Catholicism or Orthodoxy, where there’s formal structure. It seems like they’re feeling lost and looking for direction, and they’re finding it in religion.

reply

You couldn't be more wrong.

reply

Maybe you should do some research before you open your mouth and embarrass yourself.
https://archive.is/NBfxU
https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/why-generation-z-is-returning-to-religion/
https://nypost.com/2024/12/03/us-news/young-men-are-converting-to-orthodox-christianity-in-droves/
https://lets.church/media/fZRu8uESyZKMKLnqW1J6mw

reply

In 2022, 32% of the UK population identified as religious, down from 57% in 1981. The proportion of people who identify as atheist has also increased, from 4% in 1981 to 21% in 2022.

reply

I don’t disagree. What I’m saying is that this trend peaked around 2020, and now a new generation of young people is finding its way back to religion, driven by a sense of alienation and a desire to escape the emptiness of a nihilistic malaise.

reply

So answer the question can you analyze a basketball game by only looking at a stat sheet and no footage?

reply

No, you can't.

reply

Exactly. Which means what smart guy? Not all stats are measured equally and fairly. And they are not gospel truth like you try to paint. Now kindly sit your ass down and fuck off.

reply

No, that’s not what it means. It means that while stats don’t provide the full picture or all the details, they do show objective facts about reality — like who won or who scored the most points. Similarly, with race, while IQ tests may not tell us why Black people tend to score lower — whether it’s due to genetics, upbringing, culture, or systemic racism — they do clearly show that, on average, blacks have lower IQs compared to Whites, Asians, and Latinos. And that Sub-Saharan Africans score around 60-70 on average, which is considered mentally disabled in most of Europe. These are facts.

Now, that doesn’t mean IQ tests are the only thing we rely on. There are other studies suggesting, for example, that genetics play a role in IQ. There are also numerous sociological studies showing that even if you put Black people in different environments and provide them with all kinds of help and resources, they still tend to perform worse compared to Whites. So, clearly, there’s a lot more going on.

reply

It shows who won. That's it. It shows who scored points. Upbringing and money have something to do with opportunities in life. People with more money get more opportunities in life. Less restrictions and more lenient legal consequences. Fuckboys like you want to ignore all that in order to praise whites. If someone has a a race if 5 miles both should start at 0 right? You let someone get a 4 mile head start and then praise them when they win.

Remember civil rights happened in the 60s. Which means blacks didn't have access to the education or money whites did. Also... The effects of racism don't just disappear overnight. It carries on long lasting consequences after the 60s. On average whites make more money.

reply

Wrong again. As I've clearly stated, we're not just relying on IQ. There are other studies that show even Black children raised by affluent White parents still perform worse than their White counterparts. This is undeniable evidence that genes play a significant role in behavior and IQ. And as for the 1960s, the reality is actually the opposite of what you claim. The Civil Rights movement, far from helping the Black community, actually hurt it in many ways. Before the 1960s, Black people were doing far better — they were better dressed, had stable and healthy families, and generally thrived more than they did after the so-called advancements of Civil Rights, integration, and welfare. Post-1960s, the Black community has been in a steep decline. Today, about 70% of Black children are raised in broken homes with no father figure, leading to higher rates of criminal behavior and other negative outcomes. The facts speak for themselves..

reply

Nope that's a blatant lie. So I got you saying blacks were better before the 60s? Want to double down on that?

reply

No, it’s not. Just go listen to someone like Thomas Sowell (who is black btw) — he’ll break it down for you since I have no patience for your subpar intellect. You’re not engaging in good faith. No amount of evidence will ever get you to admit, “I concede, I was wrong, you were right.” You’re incapable of that, so what’s the point of continuing this discussion? I’ve made my argument. If you’re actually interested, you can easily find the evidence online. I even gave you a solid starting point.

And when I said Black families were better off before the ’60s, I was referring specifically to family structure. They weren’t more intelligent, but they had stable households with fathers present, which made them healthier in that regard. And while they were just as prone to violence as they are today, they were kept in check. Back then, if a Black man stepped out of line or mouthed off to a White man, he would get lynched — so it was in his best interest to exercise some self-control

reply

Candace Owens is also black dipshit! Just because a black person spouts that rhetoric does it make it true. Nope someone's words aren't concrete nor fact. Stats are not all measured equally as we already established. Also no you made the claim it's up to you to provide the evidence fuck face.

Ah so you aren't a fan of freedom of speech then? I thought you were about freedom of speech?

reply

Thomas Sowell is not Candace Owens. He’s one of the most respected intellectuals alive today — a towering figure in economics and social theory. I deliberately chose him because I thought the irony, given my position, would be clear and sharp, but you're too dull to even grasp that.

And yes, you’re technically correct that it’s my job to provide evidence for my claims. But let’s be honest — why would I waste hours combing through studies, data, and articles to spoon-feed you evidence when we both know you wouldn’t read it? And even if you did, you wouldn’t concede a single point. You’d dismiss it, twist it, or ignore it altogether because you’re not interested in the truth. You’re a bad-faith actor, plain and simple, and, frankly, you lack the intellectual capacity to engage in this level of discourse. I’m not here to play tutor to someone unfit for the conversation.

reply

No you chose who would say what you wanted to hear. That was made evident when you mentioned Melton saying you won the debate. So yeah not surprising that you can't be trusted in that way.

I'm not buying that bullshit. Every right wing bootlicker on here plays that same game. I can provide evidence for my claims. That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. You wouldn't concede to any fact I provided. So question for you. Let's see how you handle facts. Do rich people get more leniency in terms of the judicial system?

reply

Do rich people get more leniency in terms of the judicial system?

It depends on the crime. If wealthier people manage to avoid harsher penalties, it’s likely because they can afford skilled private lawyers, unlike most poorer defendants who are typically represented by overburdened public defenders.

reply

Is that fair and just?

reply

No.

reply

Interesting then why do you swear by laws when they benefit people you like?

reply

ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! Do you speak it?

reply

Quite well! Be careful you are quoting a black actor. Aren't they of a lower life form? You should be ashamed.

reply

Nah, I like Samuel L. Jackson. He's one of the good ones.

reply

Careful he's woke. Check his politics.

reply

Haha. That was lost on him.

reply

"That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

Christopher Hitchens was just being discussed on here. Were you a part of that conversation?

reply

I observed it lol.

reply

Briefly I think..

reply

That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

And that which can be claimed with false or bullshit evidence can be dismissed as bullshit evidence.

reply

Sadly, your relationship with any evidence is, as always, non existent.

reply

You got your ass whooped when discussing healthcare. I wrecked your world. Kindly fuck off you parrot.

reply

Such juvenile competitiveness, lol.

Are you still sore after I ignored your dumbass question even though you failed to refute anything I stated?

reply

I refuted everything you stated, honestly it was easy to dismantle. You ignored it because you knew you couldn't refute it. Healthcare in America is a pay up or die system. Since healthcare is privatized, then so should the police, fire department and public schools.

reply

You didn't refute anything; you evaded and deflected with a dumbass question that I ignored.

reply

Nope I refuted it all. So kindly fuck off now got it?

reply

Cope and seethe.

reply

Cool. I'm glad you are talking yourself again. Live by that you need that said to you.

reply

With the inception of IQ testing in the early 20th century, differences in average test performance between racial groups have been observed, though these differences have fluctuated and in many cases steadily decreased over time. Complicating the issue, modern science has concluded that race is a socially constructed phenomenon rather than a biological reality, and there exist various conflicting definitions of intelligence. In particular, the validity of IQ testing as a metric for human intelligence is disputed. Today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

Pseudoscientific claims of inherent differences in intelligence between 'races' have played a central role in the history of scientific racism .In recent decades, as understanding of human genetics has advanced, claims of inherent differences in intelligence between 'races' have been broadly rejected by scientists on both theoretical and empirical grounds. One reason being that there is more genetic variation within a single population than between populations.

reply

As we've discussed before, there are numerous studies and scientists that support what is often referred to as 'scientific racism,' but academia systematically marginalizes these voices. Many journals outright refuse to publish data that challenges their anti-racist ideology, rejecting reason, evidence, and genuine scientific inquiry. Academia and its journals have become ideologically captured, prioritizing dogma over truth. Hopefully, under Trump, universities will face defunding and be purged of the woke zealots who have turned them into ideological echo chambers. Perhaps this cultural shift will pressure journals to embrace inconvenient truths and restore intellectual integrity.

reply

Thank you for your opinions.

reply

Your Welcome.

BTW, thought you might find this interesting:
https://ncofnas.com/p/talking-about-race-differences-with

Nathan Cofnas talks to Nicholas Wade about Race Differences. They discuss the evolution of human diversity, leftist groupthink, and how to reform academia.

reply

Thank you. It ought to be said that Nicholas Wade's 2014 book A Troublesome Inheritance: Genes, Race and Human History was widely denounced by the scientific community for misrepresenting research into human population genetics.

reply

I wouldn’t expect anything else from a scientific community so ideologically captured by Wokism. Do you honestly believe that scientists — even those who aren’t woke — would risk their careers and reputations to defend the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to have lower intelligence than Whites, even if the evidence were overwhelming? Maybe it’s been a while since you’ve been in academia, but things are bad. A family member of mine did a postdoc at Harvard, and the horror stories she shared would make anyone lose faith in both science and academia. And she’s in the hard sciences (molecular biology). I can only imagine how much worse it must be in the social sciences.

reply

I wouldn’t expect anything else from a scientific community so ideologically captured by Wokism.


This assumes that this is the case, and if it is, it is necessarily a bad thing, and then is enough to influence the otherwise objective reading of scientific data.

Do you honestly believe that scientists — even those who aren’t woke — would risk their careers and reputations to defend the idea that blacks are genetically predisposed to have lower intelligence than Whites, even if the evidence were overwhelming?


This comes close to a loaded question. As said above, today, the scientific consensus is that genetics does not explain differences in IQ test performance between groups, and that observed differences are environmental in origin.

reply

I agree that this is the scientific consensus, but my argument is that it is built on shoddy, cherry-picked data. Furthermore, data that contradicts this consensus is actively and passively suppressed. Any scientist who dares to pursue evidence suggesting that IQ differences are the result of genetic variations between populations risks jeopardizing their career and reputation. The few brave enough to follow the evidence that challenges the consensus have been systematically forced out of academia.

I find your blind allegiance to the establishment deeply disturbing.

reply

As always, thank you for your opinions and interpretation of things as you see it.

reply

That’s exactly what this site is for — to share our views, discuss them, and debate them. That’s the fun of it, and I’m glad you’re here to be part of it.

reply

Depends on the data behind the statistics. Citizens in Western countries are definitely declining in church attendance. The opposite is true for those in other parts of the world. The migration of millions of devout Latin American Catholics into the U.S. during open border policies is already impacting public surveys in favor of abortion restrictions in the U.S.

reply

The proportion of people who identify as atheist has also increased, from 4% in 1981 to 21% in 2022.

Translation: The population of idolaters has increased to 21%.

reply

They'll attack you if you say atheist. Best to use non-religious and end it with that. It's like trying to use CIS for religion.

reply

I am fine with my opinions and lack of belief being attacked or disputed, to be honest. I don't come here expecting an atheist echo chamber, which would be no fun at all. Ideas not examined are not worth having. But I have no interest in fudging so as not to trigger Xians, it is their problem not mine.

reply

Lost souls are the easiest to indoctrinate and remain more loyal. They could also join the military as well for structure and not need the hocus pokus magical fairy tale to do some actual good for country.

I once tried religion, but the amount of BS answers they try to give you for why God did what it did is insufficient reasoning.

reply

I can't say that I've noticed that. Even the younger people, say below 40, who belong to a religion don't really put a lot of importance on actually going to church, for the most part.

People being religious but believing in something that's more vaguely defined and doesn't have many rules seems to become more common as organized religion is getting less influential. Believing in... something, but not sure what it is. Try to be a good person and follow the golden rule. That kind of thing.

reply

I was talking more about this:
https://archive.is/NBfxU
https://nypost.com/2023/04/26/why-generation-z-is-returning-to-religion/
https://nypost.com/2024/12/03/us-news/young-men-are-converting-to-orthodox-christianity-in-droves/
https://lets.church/media/fZRu8uESyZKMKLnqW1J6mw

It’s not so much Millennials — it’s more the young Gen Z men. They’re increasingly turning to the right or the far right, and many are embracing religion, particularly highly structured forms like Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity. I think they’re searching for structure and guidance. It’s less about Jesus for them and more about the rules, traditions, meaning, and teachings that come with these faiths. They’re looking for the whole package, something to fill the void of nihilism that permeates today’s world.

reply

I was going to post something similar to this but you beat me to it. In the age of TikTok and effervescent belief structures, the youth are searching for something timeless that they can cling to as the world continues to oscillate around them.

reply

Like minds and all that jazz...
:-)

reply

Religion is basically for the weak-minded lost souls. Lost sounds being damaged goods or empty people that desire purpose in life. Sound people don't need religion to function humanely. There is so much content out there that you don't need religion to fill it.

reply

I disagree. I think the reason so many people feel lost and empty is that religion has largely disappeared from their lives. It provided meaning, structure, and a connection to something greater than ourselves. Personally, I wish I could be a believer. I’m open to the idea, but my knowledge of philosophy and science prevents me from embracing God or Christianity based on the standard arguments. What I need is a proper theologian — someone who can think creatively and outside the box.

The closest I’ve come to this is through the writings of Chris Hedges, who spoke about Father Daniel Berrigan, a radical Catholic priest. Berrigan had a notion that faith is rooted in the idea that “the good draws to it the good.” At first, this sounds simple, even mundane, but the more you meditate on it, the more profound it becomes. It suggests that the concept of God is essentially equivalent to the concept of Goodness itself — a metaphysical force that attracts and perpetuates goodness in the world.

This interpretation has depth. It aligns with what we know about philosophy and doesn’t violate scientific principles. It preserves many of the traditional attributes we associate with God — omnipresence, a moral center, and a unifying force — while also sidestepping some of the logical contradictions in more literal interpretations.

For now, this is just a rough sketch of an idea — not fully developed, but promising. As an atheist, I’ve tried hard to conceive of a version of God that makes sense, and this is the closest I’ve come. It’s not about abandoning reason but finding a synthesis between the spiritual and the rational. In this view, God becomes not a being but a principle, the metaphysical embodiment of Goodness itself — a concept simple in form but vast in implication.


reply

84% of humanity believes in a higher power. Religion isn't going away, despite the wishful thinking of POS atheists.

reply

Bullshit... With each generation less people believe in the very stupid Christianity religion in the US. I have news for you. God and Jesus are just fictional characters in a book of fairy tales called the Bible. Aren't you a little too old to believe in imaginary friends, Lil Craigy?

reply

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is well established. God is a different question.

reply

Where is there proof of his existence? There is none.

reply

There are others, but Tacitus is regarded as the most authoritative.

reply

Who knew him well?

reply

Is there a point you're trying to make?

reply

Just that the best evidence for the historicity of a figure is first hand knowledge, and not hearsay. Tacitus wrote in 116 AD, and does not mention the source of his information or mention Jesus as a divine. You probably know though that overall I accept the ordinary evidence for JC the man as convincing.

reply

The affirmations of Tacitus' accuracy and veracity are exhaustive. This isn't a semantic claim you'll debunk or cast doubt on with a few general catchphrases. You'll have to do better.

Your insertion of divine at this stage of the conversation is inappropriate in application to my statement.

reply

The affirmations of Tacitus' accuracy and veracity are exhaustive.


I merely pointed out the caution that any unsourced hearsay ought to bring, even from the most reputable of historians - especially from an age where standards were different. If that causes you issues then you ought to study history more. For instance elsewhere we have (for instance) Tacitus describing Vespasian’s supposed healing miracles performed in Alexandria in AD 69: a blind man and a man with an arthritic hand beg the emperor to heal them, which he successfully does. Tacitus also reports a phoenix that appeared in Egypt in AD 34 ), and so on. This is not to say that in regards to JC, Tacitus is necessarily wrong, merely that is account is not the best one could imagine being not first hand, rather passing and brief.

Your insertion of divine at this stage of the conversation is inappropriate


I mentioned it as I have debated with believers who conveniently conflate Jesus the man and Jesus the Divine, as if accepting the historicity of one means accepting the other - which I don't.

reply

Oh boy, I've never heard that before from you brainless beta-cuck homos. Sorry but I don't put any faith in the empty words of Godless queers that don't even have a job but live off the system.

reply

Only abject idiots don't believe in God.

reply

We ought always proportion our belief to the evidence. If the theist cannot prove the case, then the decision goes to the atheist by default.

reply

Sorry skavau, but your atheist cult of morons is wrong, but don't worry, if you stay on course, you'll be granted a place where you will be eternally separated from God and all that is good. I shudder to think about it and hope you find Him before it's too late.

reply

First, address the right person. Second prove your preferred deity exists. Then I will take your words seriously.

reply

Just admit that you're skavau then I'll take your words seriously.

reply

Evasion noted.

reply

Evasion noted, skavau.

reply

Oh dear. It is not 'evasion' to ignore the same nonsense because it has been repeated ad nauseam, usually in lieu of addressing what I say. Even Melton has tired of this lol But if you think it is profitable, keep going. It just means the end of conversation.

reply

Aw ca'mon skav, you can and usually do keep it going.

reply

... end of conversation. QED

reply

See? I told you, skavau.

reply

Makes sense, both dumb as shit.

reply

100%

reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

reply

Ca'mon skavau, you can do better than that.

reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

reply

Still committed to your lie, I see.

reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

reply

I understand that you're butt hurt about being outed and because Trump won, but pull yourself together man!

reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

reply

Quadrupling, or whatever it is by now on embarrassing your self. Keep going, skavau!

reply

zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

reply

Ca'mon, my shavau puppet! One more!

reply

Whatever.

reply

Good skavau! Good boy.

reply

Keep going. You look bigger and smarter with each reply.

reply

Just admit it. You'll feel better.

reply

Yes I admit I am bored. Enough never to answer you on this subject ever again. But have fun with your last reply here - and don't forget to keep trying if it gives you purpose.

reply

Nah. you'll never give in, skavau.

reply

Christianity - 2.38 billion
Islam - 1.91 billion
Hinduism - 1.16 billion
Buddhism - 507 million
Folk Religions - 430 million
Other Religions - 61 million
Judaism - 14.6 million
Unaffiliated - 1.19 billion

2020


Yeah, about 85% are religious in some form or another. Lots of lost souls and people that need structure or people that already have everything and wondering what the purpose of life is.

reply

84% of humanity believes in a higher power


Ah, that old Argument from Popularity. Always so convincing...

reply

It's not an argument, it's fact. The OP said churches are closing. The fact that 84% of people on planet earth are religious is factual proof to the contrary.

This is why I say you're too fucking dumb to argue with.

reply

You said "84% of humanity believes in a higher power. Religion isn't going away"

..Which was a comment about religion, not churches.

And the Argument from Popularity is a well known fallacious one:

https://www.scribbr.co.uk/fallacy/the-ad-populum-fallacy/

In regards to places of worship: in the UK about 3,500 churches in the UK have closed since 2013, while more than 900 places of worship are on Historic England’s “heritage at risk” register. In Scotland, more than 180 are officially at risk, and the Church of Scotland is considering closing up to 40% of its churches. In the US about 4,500 Protestant churches closed in 2019, the last year data is available, with only about 3,000 new churches opening,

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/24/thousands-churches-risk-closure-uk-heritage
https://research.lifeway.com/2021/05/25/protestant-church-closures-outpace-openings-in-u-s/

Sorry about that.

you're too fucking dumb to argue with.


And yet, here you are. Exactly how many times did you reply to me overnight? LOL

reply

It wasn't an argument from popularity, idiot.

I think religion and churches are kinda related, retard.

I said you're too dumb to argue with. I didn't say I wasn't gonna do it when the mood strikes.

reply

It wasn't an argument from popularity, I think religion and churches are kinda related


Indeed; but in the sentence "84% of humanity believes in a higher power. Religion isn't going away, despite the wishful thinking of POS atheists." There was no mention of churches. There was mention of atheism, implying that the popularity of religion alone defeats lack of belief. If you merely meant to imply that the continuing popularity of religion, true or not, means that one might reasonably expect it to be around some time, then that is fair enough.

It is still logically valid to suggest, as I simply do, that something is not necessarily true because a lot of people believe in it.

retard. idiot

Oh dear.

I said you're too dumb to argue with. I didn't say I wasn't gonna do it when the mood strikes.

lol I guess you have been in the mood, five times today, so far then?

reply

That is sad. I dont think you would actually enjoy a world without religion. You think you would but if it ever happens you will more than likely regret it. Unless your just a psychopath with no heart.

reply

That’s my position as well, and I say this as an atheist. We’ve seen what happens when religion declines — it gives rise to secular dogmas like Wokeness. If the choice is between that and old-school Christianity, I’d choose Christianity without hesitation.

reply

Let's hope Christianity doesn't die, we need something to counter the Islamic crescent moon cult. You may not like Christianity but I do think living under Islamic rule would be 100x worse.

reply

As an atheist, I absolutely agree.

reply

It's the logic path the modern world has to go.
Religiosity has always been reverse proportional to education, the least educated people are the most religious ones.
This has worked out quite nicely for religious organisations and politics as long as the industry needed mostly simple workers to dig up cole from the mines or to clean the streets or to serve the households of the rich.
But nowadays an ever further advanced technology requires ever higher educated workers to operate the technology and that means the industry (and with it the politics they bought) has less and less need for stupid workers.
Alongside the higher education the industry is pushing for comes naturally the demise of religion.

Furthermore there's the generational effect, because religion depends on child indoctrination.
Children who do not get indoctrinated with religion before their brain learns logic thinking around the age of 13, are afterwards immune to religion, because a logic thinking brain, where the logic sits deeper in the brain than any religious ideas, sees religion as totally absurd on first view.
Therefore with ever more atheist parents who do not indoctrinate their children, with every new generation growing up there's a growing amount of people immune to religion.

Here in Europe the young generation of the 15-25 year olds has over 90% atheists today already, meaning by the time the older generation dies out, some time around 2100, all of Europe will have an average of over 90% atheists, where the US is lagging roughly 40 years behind but will get there as well.

The Muslim world seems to be even further behind, but we do not know any specific numbers about that, because in countries where religion makes the laws most people who have long lost their faith do not dare admitting that in public.
I would estimate even in the Muslim world some 20-30% of the young generation are atheists by now.

reply

Science and education (indoctrination of another sort) is the new religion. You people need to pay attention more.

reply

Different from religion science is evidence based.
In religion you become famous if you have the authoritarian power to convince others of something you have no evidence for.
In science the best way to become famous is proving someone else wrong, like Leonard Susskind did with Stephen Hawking on the "Hawking radiation".
There are no arguments from authority without evidence in science, one doesn't have to be a scientist to find scientific facts, a simple plumber like Susskind was at the time can prove one of the most renowned scientist wrong anytime, all it takes is verifiable evidence, while religion puts death penalties on people bringing verifiable evidence that contradicts religious doctrine.

reply

The covid scare showed how easily "science" becomes a blind faith religion.

reply

THAT is the most important difference between religion and science.
Both CAN be wrong at times, but only science is willing to admit when it was wrong and adjust to new evidence, while religion insists to have the ultimate and never changing truth written in a book whos authors didn't even know the earth isn't flat.
Science learns from mistakes and improves the world in the long run from ever better and ever more evidence, religion doesn't want any progress.

reply

That's not strictly true. The current rainbow Pope for example has transformed sodomy from sin into celebration.

It's even less true on the context of religion as a concept compared to examining a single religion. Looking at the progression of specific religions from the likes of Zoroastrianism to Christianity, there have been vast revisions, elaborations, and revaluations of general concepts.

reply

"The current rainbow Pope for example has transformed sodomy from sin into celebration."


Oh really? Are you saying the Church has changed its stance on homosexuality?

reply

De facto yes, unless you want to argue that the blessing and baptism of gays and transexuals is canonical.

reply

link?

reply

https://www.npr.org/2023/11/10/1212319566/the-vatican-says-priests-can-baptize-transgender-people

reply

quote the relevant part. the first few paragraphs are about transgenders. I was asking specifically about homosexuality.

reply

https://apnews.com/article/vatican-lgbtq-pope-bfa5b71fa79055626e362936e739d1d8

Though you didn't even say please.

reply

Where in the link does it say the Church now accepts homosexuality and it's no longer sinful?

reply

"blessing and baptism of gays and transexuals"

You have links establishing that both of those have occurred via Papal Decree and that my claim is true. To disobey the Pope, the highest authority, is to risk ejection or excommunication.

You can do with that what you want and explore the topic from there.

reply

Catholicism is a satanic babylonian pagan religion masquerading as Christianity, stop conflating the two.

reply

I wish this side of you would come out more often tvfan.

reply

You're too stupid to argue with.

reply

Did the truth about the rainbow Pope hurt your clown feelings? Need a clown hug? Maybe a clown tissue? We could even baptize you now that the pope has approved it for tranny homosexuals.

reply

For the record... the Pope or the Church can not change any moral* laws established by God.


Moral* meaning any laws dealing with good and evil. You are obviously too ignorant of the topic to even discuss it.

reply

For the record, the Pope is an extension of God's Will on Earth. If you have a problem with baptizing trannies then maybe you can follow this former Bishop to his new congregation.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/pope-francis-texas-bishop-strickland-b2445810.html

reply

That newspaper doesnt speak for the Church. But you knew that, continue acting stupid.

reply

That newspaper doesn't speak for the Church; it records the sayings and doings of others. You knew that, or maybe you aren't acting stupid.

This was referenced a few lines in:

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-11/bishop-strickland-relieved-of-pastoral-care-of-us-diocese.html

It's funny that you used "speak for the Church" specifically, since that's exactly what "Vatican News" does.

reply

Im not talking about Bishop Strickland. Stay on topic.

reply

I am, and I already proved my assertion on the original topic. Fuck off.

reply

You never proved that the Church accepts homosexuality and that it's no longer sinful.

reply

"You never proved that the Church accepts homosexuality and that it's no longer sinful."

I proved that trannies are baptized and homos are blessed, and what happens if so much as a Bishop disagrees with that. You can meander around word choice like an effeminate bitch while making passive aggressive remarks and slurping sanctified semen, or not.

Linking you those was more effort than you've been worth here and more than was deserved with your attitude. Eat clown shit and bye.

reply

"I proved that trannies are baptized and homos are blessed"

which is a straw argument and you know that. Nice little temper tantrum though.

reply

A straw argument to my own claim? You responded to me, remember.

Are you that fucking stupid?

reply

I never claimed homosexuals can't be blessed or baptized.

reply

You're a retard, so there's a refresher on how we got here:

"Are you saying the Church has changed its stance on homosexuality?"

"I never claimed homosexuals can't be blessed or baptized."



Unless the Church has always blessed homos and baptized trannies then yes, the Church has changed its stance as I have demonstrated with

"link(s)?"

about the occurrences as well as a notable example that this is being enforced by the Church with consequences for refusal to comply with the Papal order.

But you know this, right? Or are you just being an obtuse bitch and trying to shift this conversation elsewhere because of your faith? If you were more personable I might be interested in that.

reply

A straw man fallacy (sometimes written as strawman) is the informal fallacy of refuting an argument different from the one actually under discussion, while not recognizing or acknowledging the distinction

reply

People like to throw out pretentious terms like the Google definition of straw man, but it's especially retarded here because only I made a claim and provided evidence. You're just some chimp saying "link, nope, stupid, straw man."

Are you saying I straw manned myself when this conversation is based off of my claim that I supported? Either we're in the era of copypasta insults or:

"ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER! Do you speak it?"

reply

"Where in the link does it say the Church now accepts homosexuality and it's no longer sinful?"


My claim is implied when I said this. Now do you want to discuss the topic or not?


Also this "For the record... the Pope or the Church can not change any moral* laws established by God."

reply

So you're a retard. Carry on.

reply

Abandoned the topic already?  😃

reply

Here's what someone must do to be baptized in the Catholic Church.[below] So a gay person must be willing to accept God and follow the rules of the Church.



To be a Catholic, you must profess the Catholic Faith in its entirety, be united in the Sacraments, and follow the Church's teachings (e.g. the Commandments and the Church's Precepts). While you must receive the Sacraments physically from a Catholic priest, preparation classes are required before an adult may become a Catholic.

reply

Nice.

reply

You claim that God is always right and he doesn't make mistakes. If that's true then why did God create homosexuals if He hates them?

reply

Ca'mon Lige. If'n ya had two brain cells tuh rub t'gether, yew'd know the answer t'that'n.

reply

So we can all laugh at them.

reply

The current pope is the first one who can foresee that his organisation will lose its grip on the population.
Based in Rome, basically in the middle of the continent with the highest percentage of atheists on earth today, he and his advisors can already see the time coming when the catholic church will have to declare bankruptcy.
That's why the pope is now trying to appeal to as many groups of people as possible, you know, the groups the organisation used to declare an abomination that needs psychologic "therapy", just because if he can only get a few of them to stick to their religion, it might slow down the demise of his organisation just enough so the inevitable demise of his organisation will happen past his lifetime.

"Revisions" as you call it have happened in religions basically only in the very last minute, when religious leaders saw their organisation collapsing and figured concessions would be the only thing to let the organisation survive.
In the US it took losing a whole civil war before the Christian leaders were willing to give up slavery.

reply

Scientism; the religion of science.

How many times has science been wrong?

How many "theories" are in science?

Atheism is a replacement secular religion for traditional religions.

reply

How many times has science been wrong?


And how many times right, transforming the world? Science always revises itself according to new ideas and evidence.

How many "theories" are in science?


You know that a scientific theory is not the same thing as a regular theory.. right?

Atheism is a replacement secular religion

If not believing in deities is a religion then not playing football is a sport.

reply

Science doesn't revise itself; people do.

A theory is still a theory regardless of the labels attached.

Nonsense analogy. The deities are simply "replaced" by the worshipping of idols (idolatry) ...
Scientism, Climatism, Statism, Wokeism, etc.

reply

Science doesn't revise itself; people do.


Scientific knowledge is constantly being revised and redefined. But thank you for the semantics.

A theory is still a theory regardless of the labels attached


Please see my patient explanation elsewhere of the difference between scientific theories and the use of the term in common speech.

The deities are simply "replaced" by the worshipping of idols (idolatry) ...
Scientism, Climatism, Statism, Wokeism, etc.


Websters: The meaning of worship is to honor or show reverence for as a divine being or supernatural power. So, no then. However, if we accept your interpretation of things then we can include Trumpism.

reply

Yes, revised by "people", thanks for making my point. And deflection noted.

Your definition is a regurgitated rhetoric that doesn't reflect reality.

Once again, citing internet scriptures doesn't change facts or reality.

Trumpism is another fabrication by the same regime that you worship; your constant citations is proof of that.

reply

Yes revised by people

As Curiousmind puts it elsewhere in this thread, science, as a discipline, is inherently self-correcting. Which is what I meant.

citing internet scriptures doesn't change facts or reality.


Is that why you never quote sources? In case your reality is threatened?

Trumpism is another fabrication


https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/trumpism

Don't believe a dictionary either. Have a nice day.

reply

Trying to piggyback off someone else’s comments? … shocker.

Science is not wrong, it’s the people that are either wrong or lie about it.

Science has always been the same regardless of whatever state it is in including any/all changes; it’s the observer that makes the wrong conclusions based on their observations which they often get wrong.

Show me how often I beg and nag others for sources like a child that requires their hand being held?

Show me how often others that you perceive as right wingers beg and nag others for sources?

The reason some of us don’t ask or require sources is because we either already know or we are capable of doing our own research.

Not everyone is a regime worshiper that requires propaganda and internet scriptures to do the thinking for us.
We are capable of independent/critical thinking which you obviously are not.

You are so dependent on regurgitating/parroting others that you’re incapable of making any logical or reasonable conclusions without contradicting yourself.

Oh, and that "dictionary definition" is an establishment/regime fabrication … once again, you prove my point.

reply

Trying to piggyback off someone else’s comments?


This is an open message board. Sorry about that.

Science has always been the same regardless of whatever state it is in including any/all changes;


If you mean that the scientific method is always the same, then I would agree with you,

it’s the observer that makes the wrong conclusions based on their observations which they often get wrong.


The inevitable correction which ultimately just shows that one of the characteristics of science is falsification. Were that your religion so amenable to that.

We are capable of independent/critical thinking


As you appear to run tight with alt-right Christian herd all the time that is pretty ironic...

The reason some of us don’t ask or require sources is because we either already know or we are capable of doing our own research.


And the reason why you don't ever offer the fruits of your 'research' with links is...

that "dictionary definition" is an establishment/regime fabrication


Even for you, saying that the Cambridge University Dictionary is 'fabricated' sounds a bit of a stretch.

Here is the Collins definition. Feel free to call them liars too LOL:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/trumpism

Feel free to offer links to rebut these standard dictionary entries.. oh, sorry I forgot....

reply

The Collins definition is just another "altered regurgitation" of the other sources that were fabricated by the establishment ... Once again, thanks for confirming everything I stated.

reply

Another lying dictionary, well who'd have thought that!?

Trumpism is "what the president believes on any particular moment on any particular day about any particular subject," says Ron Christie, a Republican analyst who worked in the White House of George W Bush.

"He could believe he's against climate change on Monday, and Tuesday, he could come back to you and say I am the most ardent believer in climate change, but by Wednesday he could go back to his previous position."



https://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/264746-the-four-characteristics-of-trumpism/

reply

Citing quotes from fake Republicans and RINOs doesn't help your case, it confirms mine.

reply

The case you haven't made with any authorities, instead just offered the usual sweeping alt-right tropes and opinions? It must feel as if the whole world is against you. Which most of it is.

reply

the usual sweeping alt-right tropes and opinions?

And yet, you are the one citing them.

reply

one citing them.


Whatever. If you think Christie is alt-right you need to check again. But I am tired of ping pong with someone who accepts nothing and offers nothing. Though you calling dictionaries liars was amusing for a while. Bye for now.

reply

On the contrary, Christie is another leftist/democrat pretending and posing as a right wing/republican. And here you are, citing him.

The irony from someone that offers nothing but propaganda scriptures.

reply

Filmflaneur, What are you talking about? A theory is a theory no matter what, there is no “scientific theory” and “regular theory”. Theories are as close to objective fact as they can get, when something is declared a theory (like evolution) it is accepted as objective fact until disproven. Can a theory be modified or thrown out? Of course it can, if it couldn’t then that would mean there wouldn’t be any reason to believe it. The fact that it has stood up to scrutiny and hasn’t been disproven means we have every reason to believe it. I swear the Democrats are the most scientifically illiterate people I have ever encountered

Looks like we have an evolution denier in our midst, uh oh retard alert. Looks like you need both a remedial civics course and a remedial science course. Derp derp

reply

Filmflaneur, What are you talking about? A theory is a theory no matter what, there is no “scientific theory” and “regular theory”.


Sorry but you are wrong. In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence. But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts. The theory of gravitation, for instance, explains why apples fall from trees and astronauts float in space. Similarly, the theory of evolution explains why so many plants and animals—some very similar and some very different—exist on Earth now and in the past, as revealed by the fossil record.

reply

Oh I see, so because your cult uses the word incorrectly that means there is a new definition? Add “theory” to the list of words Democrats can define along with “woman”. You don’t have the first clue what a theory is, a theory is a scientific explanation for a scientific phenomenon , it is as close to fact as it can get. Pick up a science book.

Also you “float” in space (I’m assuming you meant inside a space ship) because you’re in a free fall. Derp derp.

reply

your cult uses the word incorrectly. You don’t have the first clue what a theory is


A quick Google will confirm what I am saying.

a theory is a scientific explanation for a scientific phenomenon , it is as close to fact as it can get. Pick up a science book.


More or less what I said. Make your mind up.

Also you “float” in space (I’m assuming you meant inside a space ship) because you’re in a free fall. Derp derp.


I have no idea what you are on about here, nor do I have no idea of the 'cult' you accuse me of being a member of.

reply

You clearly misused the word “theory”, you don’t know even the basics of science. Now you’re just making up definitions like you people tried to do with the word “woman”.

reply

You clearly misused the word “theory”, you don’t know even the basics of science


As I say, any decent internet search will quickly throw up the distinction between scientific theory and the regular day to day use of the word. That you evidently haven't done it is not my problem. As one of the basics of science education, it appears it is you whose knowledge is at fault.

Now you’re just making up definitions like you people tried to do with the word “woman”.


Irrelevant. And since I have not mentioned this here, you are just moonlighting.

reply

The “regular day” usage of the word is irrelevant. Just because other people misuse the word doesn’t make it that the definition. Again you liberals love changing the definitions of words to fit your poorly thought out narratives. Actually it is your problem, you are the one claiming that there is some alternate definition of a “theory” therefore the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

Also my bringing up the lefts non-answer to the question “what is a woman” is merely supporting my premise that you people often times can’t even define words that you use.

Science and liberalism don’t seem to go together very well.

reply

The “regular day” usage of the word is irrelevant

Not if we are distinguishing between two types.
you liberals love changing the definitions of words

This is not a political thing.
you are the one claiming that there is some alternate definition of a “theory” therefore the burden is on you to demonstrate that.

Not read my earlier posts then? But, just because I like to help people:

A scientific theory is a structured explanation to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world that often incorporates a scientific hypothesis and scientific laws. The scientific definition of a theory contrasts with the definition most people use in casual language.

"The way that scientists use the word 'theory' is a little different than how it is commonly used in the lay public," said Jaime Tanner, a professor of biology at Emerson College in Boston. "Most people use the word 'theory' to mean an idea or hunch that someone has, but in science the word 'theory' refers to the way that we interpret facts."

https://www.livescience.com/21491-what-is-a-scientific-theory-definition-of-theory.html

Now please stop. It is only yourself that you are embarrassing.

reply

No it’s completely irrelevant, you don’t get to invent your own definitions. Typical Leftist.

Actually the redefining of words to fit a political narrative is almost exclusive to the left. So yes it is a political thing.

I’ll bring you back to my first sentence. You don’t get to invent your own words. A theory is a theory, people misusing the word doesn’t change the definition you idiot. Now go pick up a science book.

reply

you don’t get to invent your own definitions. You don’t get to invent your own words


Which is why I offered links and the words of someone best placed to know, see how it works? There is not much else I can do is there? Just because you don't accept that the word 'theory' has two meaning does not mean it is not true. Ultimately, who does one more sensibly believe: a professor of biology and every Google source on the subject - or some stubborn dude on a message board? In fact is you who is redefining words by forcing 'scientific theory' into a meaning it does not have.

Now go pick up a science book.


No need, for it will inevitably tell the reader just the same.

That's all from me in regards to this ridiculous assertion of yours. Unless of course you can show a reference source explicitly saying 'scientific theory' is just 'theory' as you say. But you won't, will you?

reply

People fabricate and invent definitions and labels to suit a political and/or biased narrative. Just because it is later propagated all over the internet does not make it credible, legitimate or true. lol

reply

People fabricate and invent definitions and labels to suit a political and/or biased narrative. Just because it is later propagated all over the internet does not make it credible, legitimate or true.


Correct. Print this truism out and stick it to your fridge (ask your mum first, obviously) It may help.

reply

Atheism is as much a religion as not collecting stamps is a hobby.
Whether or not and how often science is right or wrong doesn't have the slightest effect on the fact that religion has been proven wrong in absolutely every single detail that can be tested or historically verified.
There was no census in Bethlehem at the time, therefore Jesus cannot have been born there and the entire story with the stable, the 3 kings and all the rest goes out of the window and the historical evidence for that is so solid that even biblical scholars nowadays don't believe that anymore but claim Jesus must have been born in Nazareth, they only leave out the fact that that renders the text in the Bible totally false.

reply

Believe what you will but atheism is simply a substituted secular religion. All atheists have proven that.

Everything else you stated were claims by "scientists" that have been wrong many times.

reply

Funny, you're saying I'm "claiming" there was no census in Bethlehem at the time and for some reason I must have overnatural powers to make even biblical scholars believe it while you personally have proof there was such a census, meaning you're in a personal denomination of Christianity that you alone believe in?
Won't that make your life in heaven veeeeeeery lonesome, you being the only human there while all the other humans believe in the wrong version of god and are going to hell for it?

reply

Your point about scientism in today’s culture is entirely valid. It’s a strong critique of how contemporary society often elevates science to an almost dogmatic status. That said, it’s important to note that science, as a discipline, is inherently self-correcting. While the process can be slow — requiring time to gather new data, refine hypotheses, and shift paradigms — it ultimately works.

My issue with science isn’t with science itself, but with its misapplication to areas where it doesn’t belong, like faith, art, or philosophy. These domains, though they can be informed by science, operate under different frameworks. Philosophy, for example, explores questions of existence, ethics, and meaning, which are not scientific in nature. Art, mathematics, and faith similarly fall outside the realm of science, although they can be enriched by it.

Science has its domain, and within that domain, it is extremely useful and produces significant benefits. However, when misapplied to other areas or politicized and weaponized, it can cause considerable harm.

And in science, a theory isn't the same as how we use it in everyday language. Colloquially, a theory is something like an untested idea or working guess. In science, though, it’s a well-supported explanation of a natural phenomenon, backed by a large body of evidence and rigorous testing. A theory represents the highest level of scientific certainty. It’s a broad framework that explains and unifies many individual facts and observations. It’s the culmination of repeated experiments, peer review, and continual refinement, which is why it stands as the most reliable understanding we have about any given phenomenon.

reply

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/how-plato-can-save-your-life/201106/the-scientific-atheism-fallacy-how-science-declares-god-is

reply

https://processingtherapy.com/who-is-psychology-today-owned-by/

Who owns Psychology Today? The magazine is owned by Sussex Publishers, a private publishing corporation based in New York City.


In other words, that's media owned by the richest of the rich publishing the kind of propaganda the rich like to see, in this case that the poor should not question religious authority but remain to be obedient workers.

reply

I see. So you dismiss the article out of hand because you have a beef with who published it. Read it. You might learn something, or try this one:

https://bigthink.com/thinking/atheism-inconsistent-science/

reply

What makes you think any privately owned media corporation would be more credible than any other, especially while this one says in its description already that it is designed by the rich to help other rich business owners.

https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bigthink

Big Think Edge is designed to help companies attract, develop and retain top talent at all levels of the organization.


What makes you think they could have the wellbeing of average people in mind or the truth in anything rather than the obvious special interests of the rich wanting to control the poor?

reply

So you're just going to ignore what they have to say and go completely off subject because you can't refute it. Typical.

reply

I've literally red 1000s of these sites as well as individual articles, I've crosschecked what they say with any other source I could find and theres NOTHING I ever found that would be not propaganda in the special interests of the richest of the rich.

Try the same with your religion, try cross checking your belief with any other sources you can find, read it and think about it.
As long as you're not even willing to look at it, you're pointing to yourself with your "ignore what they have to say".

https://www.learnreligions.com/scientific-historical-errors-mistakes-in-bible-248627

We can't blame ancient writers for knowing less than we do now, but we can blame people alive now for preferring the errors of ancient writers over the reliable knowledge developed today.

reply

Well, since you've "red" so much but refuse to engage with the topic because of your bigoted beliefs, I'll sum it up for you: It is dishonest for one to say God DOESN'T exist when there is no evidence either way. Before you get all high and mighty with your "burden of proof " nonsense, read the articles. It is succinctly addressed. Short answer: Agnosticism is the stance of honest scientists.

reply

Of course there is evidence that only people can deny who got indoctrinated with religion before their brain learned logic thinking.
Shall we give it a try? Shall we prove how you're denying plain logic? Doesn't even require any data or sources, other than one of the most basic statements of all Abrahamic relgions that you will certainly confirm it's nothing but plain logic.

Question: Can a god do something that is logically impossible, i.e. can your god draw a squared circle?
Answer: No he cannot, squares and circles are mutually exclusive and not even a god can do something logically impossible.

Fact of all Abrahamic religions: God is said to be "all powerful" and "all knowing" at the same time.
Question: If you know today already what will happen tomorrow, how much power can you have to change what will happen tomorrow?
Answer: None, because whatever you would change would render your knowledge about tomorrow wrong.

"All powerful" and "all knowing" are mutually exclusive and not even a god can be both at the same time, it's logically impossible and ...... pooof ..... (as Douglas Adams said in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) .... God dissolved into a cloud of logic.

reply

Blah blah blah. FACT: you don't know and all your mental gymnastics will never change that. Stretch your puny mind a bit and understand there are things you have no hope of grasping. You try to put God in a little box, based on YOUR little ideas. He's SO much bigger. Once you understand that your little ideas do not define or even remedially explain the universe, the sooner you'll be free of the prison you've put yourself in.

reply

QED (quod erat demonstrandum).

Shall we prove how you're denying plain logic?


Not even addressing the logic impossibility but making further claims without evidence that cannot be correct due to the logic impossibility of your gods existence.

reply

You clearly don't understand what I wrote.

Hint: An ant will NEVER understand algebra with its logic.

reply

See, that's the advantage of logic, one doesn't have to be all knowing to understand that something logically impossible cannot exist.
But one has to ignore logic to believe that something logically impossible could exist anyway.

reply

Lol! Your arrogance is pathetic and I'm actually embarrassed for you. You're not even a plankton in the infinite sea of the universe, yet you think you've settled an unsettled discussion that has been ongoing for thousands of years by people a lot smarter than you.

The difference between you and I, is I know that I don't know.

Good luck with thinking we're the highest form of intelligence in the universe.

reply

It's you believing to have a personal connection to "the highest form of intelligence in the universe". I know for a fact such a thing cannot exist.
But at least I'm smart enough to put advice resistant people who keep piling up false claims on top of false claims on ignore.
Have a nice life.

reply

O noes! Not the dreaded ignore!

I accept your surrender gracefully, and I wish you nothing but the best.

reply

I know for a fact such a thing cannot exist.

So you're going to deny the whole of creation and that everything spontaneously came from nothing.

reply

There is no logical reason why there cannot always be something wholly natural which can, eventually, provoke something more.

reply

Not without a creator behind it.

All creations have a creator behind it except the main/source creator.

reply

And that creator could just as well be wholly natural. Is there something you can think of which must rule that out? At least we know the natural world exists, while a wholly natural reason for everything, pace Occam has the merit of not add a whole new level of reality to explain things. So on balance, since one cannot know for sure (at the moment) which is the case, it is reasonable to prefer the simplest explanation.

reply

Are you parroting and regurgitating nonsense again? Of course you are.

reply

Are you offering any logical argument against mine? Are course you are not.

reply

You didn't have any logical arguments, you provided regurgitations ... as usual.

reply

The logical argument is that, on balance, it is better to prefer a wholly natural and permanent cause for everything than supposing a deliberate supernatural did it. You haven't given opposing reasons, which is disappointing - but expected. Please stay with the programme.

Also, there no reasons why 'regurgitations' as you call similarities between sources should not be true. You obviously believe this since you, er, regurgitate the same refusal to accept substantiation when shown it, of different sorts and in different contexts, all the time - while never offering anything of your own.

That's all for me here. See you on the next, inevitably frustrating, exchange.

reply

You evaded from my point with nonsense that you parroted from other sources that suited your narrative.

No opposing reasons are necessary.

reply

No opposing reasons are necessary.


Naturally. So my logical argument remains unchallenged. Have a nice day.

reply

What logical argument? You never made one.

reply

Oh dear, not even reading my replies then eh?

"The logical argument is that, on balance, it is better to prefer a wholly natural and permanent cause for everything than supposing a deliberate supernatural did it."

But that's really it. If you can find something logically opposing great. But you won't so just type in the usual any old unsupported blather. I doubt if anyone else will read this far anyway.

reply

Oh, I read them, but there's nothing logical about your argument.

reply

Then show it.

reply

You try to put God in a little box, based on YOUR little ideas. He's SO much bigger.


er... I thought you take pride on 'knowing you do not know'?

reply

It is dishonest for one to say God DOESN'T exist when there is no evidence either way .


In the same way that it is 'dishonest' to say that God does exist then?

It is hardly 'dishonest' when one merely expresses (what is necessarily) a belief and is sincere about it.

The Psychology Today article you linked to is quite a good one, but a slightly different view can be found in Flew's classic and influential 'The Presumption of Atheism'

https://ekremer.artsci.utoronto.ca/resources/Flew%20The%20Presumption%20of%20Atheism.pdf

Where for a host of strong reasons it is argued that the default position is a lack of belief in God (note: not necessarily saying a deity does not exist) rather than the agnostic suspension of judgement. Flew helpfully divides lack of belief into soft and hard atheism where only the latter go on to assert God's non-existence.

Also Psychology Today places a good deal of weight on Aquinas' famous 'proofs' of God, showing to his own medieval satisfaction that a Cause must exist (most of which could just as easily support the existence something wholly natural), as well on such dated notions as that 'nothing can come from nothing' when modern cosmology theorises that there is no such thing as 'nothing'; the least there ever can be is quantum foam. In fact the notion of 'nothing' 'existing' is a logical contradiction.

reply

Like I've said skavau, numerous times, I fully support opinions and beliefs, until people like MarkPh state that their OPINIONS are fact and ridicule others. Yes, I did the same in response, to illustrate that it can go both ways.

reply

Like I've said skavau (sic) ... people state that their OPINIONS are fact and ridicule others


Good example.

reply

No it isn't. It should be but it isn't. Look at all the blind, stupid faith people put in COVID vaccines. It's all about belief. Everybody wants to believe in something.

Fact remains that atheists and especially liberal atheists are the most miserable people on the planet.

reply

Is that so? Then why am I not miserable?
It's not that hard to be fine, is it?
Figuring out how the system works is easy if your brain is free for logic thinking and not blocked by religious indoctrination, I had that figured out before I turned 16.
Figuring out how to take advantage of the system takes a bit longer, at least for me it did because I've spent the first 6 years after school working a regular job before I figured out that was a dead end, meaning I was in my late 20s before I got this figured out.
From there on my life has been a walk in the park.

reply

Blocked by religious indoctrination? And you people think Christians are judgmental.

reply

Yea, I know, science facts like how the human brain works have to be ignored in order to maintain religion.
There are a lot of examples on social media where both sides of such a discussion kept going for long enough, meaning without the religious side starting to ignore the arguments of the scientists and just repeat Bible verses over and over, that the religious side of the discussion had to state that if religion shall be true all science must be false.
The best answer to that I ever saw was
"In that case I'll take your replies only when submitted by mounted messenger, because by your opinion everything invented after horse riding cannot work."

reply

Ignore how the human brain works?

There is no valid scientific argument against faith. You people seem to put a lot of effort into not believing something. The lady doth protest too much, methinks.

Look, I don't care what you believe. I just find it interesting that atheists can't seem to have a respectful discussion about it. It's always childish insults about invisible friends, etc., etc., ad nauseam. The fact that you feel the need to attack a person's faith tells me all I need to know.

reply

You're completely missing the point of why I'm writing here.
Sure, you feel attacked, of course you do, but that's not the purpose of why I'm writing here.

Religion depends on child indoctrination, only people who get indoctrinated with religion before their brain learns logic thinking can be religious in life later on, that's a science fact, you can ask Google about it.
The way how this works is another science fact about the human brain.
The brain stores information it gets from the bottom up and it will do anything it takes to protect older information against newer information coming in, in case the newer information contradicts the older one.
The brain learns logic thinking around the age of 13 and from a logic point of view religion is totally absurd on first view.
Therefore, the brain of children who get religion hammered in before they turn 13 will afterwards defend their religion against all logic and children who don't get indoctrinated are immune to religion once they turn 13.
There are plenty of scientific studies about this, ask Google.

This is usually for life, meaning people who get indoctrinated are almost all suffering the consequences of that for the rest of their lives, which means religion is a form of child abuse and you yourself are a victim of that, but that's not the fault of your parents, it's the result of a loooooong chain of indoctrinations over generations, where in old times almost everybody has been a victim of that.
There's nothing an outsider could do to change your mind, there wouldn't even be a point in trying, if the purpose of me writing here would be to convince you that you're wrong.
It always comes down to what Albert Einstein once said: "Stupid ideas do not get corrected, they die out."

There are exceptions, but those are really rare, because it takes real dramatic events to happen before an indoctrinated believer will drop his religion.
I.e. in 1755 there was a big earthquake in Lisbon, big enough to collapse all the churches in the city, killing all the believers in the churches when the roofs fell on their heads.
In the red light district of Lisbon, where almost all the "buildings" where very light weight or even simple tents, almost nobody died.
In the aftermath of that the surviving believers figured, there's no way a god would kill all the believers in the churches and leave all the sinners in the red light district unharmed.
That's why to this day, 270 years later, Lisbon is still the capital with the highest percentage of atheists in the world.

The actual purpose of me writing here is protecting children from child abuse, give counter arguments to your arguments so the children reading along here get both sides of the story, remain undecided until they turn 13 and then make up their mind themselves which in case one can keep them undecided will result in close to 100% of cases in children who do not believe in a god for the rest of their lives.

You're even helping a lot, because the more replies you're giving me the more options I have to reply with the opposite view, where from an undecided point of view I certainly have the better arguments.

reply

I don't "feel attacked". I don't care one way or another. It's just rhetoric from some anonymous internet jagoff. I think people like you are terribly misguided and nowhere near as enlightened as you think you are. Unlike a lot of Christians, I don't feel compelled to save you either.

reply

Without evidence for that I remain sceptical whether that's true, but it does show you're not a Christian by the opinion of 99% of all other Christians, because Christians are mandated by their holy book to "save" as many non believers as possible from hell.
So what religion do you believe in? Are you one of those who have made up their own, very personal denomination of Christianity that only you believe in, meaning even iffffffff there's a god chances you're the one and only who holds the right belief are 1 to the amount of people who ever lived and will live on earth?

reply

I'm going to take bible lessons from an atheist now?

reply

I place ANY bet I know more about the Bible than you do, including all the reinterpretations that distort the text until it supposedly means the opposite of what the words say.
I know several dozen denominations of Christianity, their differences and the history how ugly things got when they fought against each other.
Different from you, I do not talk about topics I know nothing about, where (like you with scientific topics) I wouldn't have more than a general denial, I study the opposite side of my point probably deeper than I study my own side, simply because only ignorance and arrogance can flat out deny something being true without studying the topic from both sides in detail.

Are you aware that the Jews have announced at some point in the past that they would once and for all find proof? They've been digging under the Temple Mountain for years, came back up empty handed and (respect for their honesty) admitted they had found nothing at all.

reply

"Different from you..."

You don't know the first thing about me.

Sorry, I don't debate matters of faith with atheists. There's no point and I'm not going to feed your childish need to belittle the faith.

reply

That's called a filter bubble, when you surround yourself exclusively with people holding the same belief, reconfirming it to each other over and over while ignoring anything from outside. It's the most reliable way to believe in false things, flat earthers do it as well.
I haven't even claimed I would know anything about you, all I know is I never met a Christian who knew nearly as much about the Bible as I do, they just can't know more, because to maintain the belief in the Christian god requires ignoring several passages from the bible and/or redefine them into the opposite of what the words say.
There's actually no need of debating faith, because that's pretty much the same as debating astrology or a flat earth.

reply

Keep trying to cope you Democrat LOSER!!!

reply

In your heart, you know he's right.

reply

In your heart you know that Trump is right and just wants what’s best for you. Suck on the next four years you loser! Quit being divisive , unite around your president and learn your place.

reply

So submit to a king? Got it.

reply

No just learn your place. You people got destroyed, you people drove the country into the ditch the least you can do is shut up and get out of the way while Trump pulls it out. If you want to be a part of Trumps plan to save this country from far left radicalism you can be but obviously you’re gonna have to admit you were wrong and you’ll have to sit in the backseat where you belong.

reply

You are aware that Trump has already proven he's just talking hot air, aren't you?
Are you aware that Trump in his campaign for his first term promised to build a wall on the border to Mexico and during his first term not only didn't build that wall but in fact deported less illegal immigrants than Obama did in either of his two terms before Trump?
Are you aware that Trump during his first term took on more new national debt than any other president during any of their terms ever before, including the presidents that were in office during world wars?

Can you name ONE thing that got better for average people in the US during Trumps first term?

reply

Actually he hasn’t, he says what he means and he means what he says. Trump started construction on the wall and the Democrats did everything they did to sabotage him, if you’re upset about the wall not being built you have no one to blame but the left.

I very much question your data on deportations but if they were less that was most definitely because of a decrease in illegal border crossings. Sounds like a good thing.

Yes I can name plenty of good things during Trumps first term: lower gas prices, tax cuts for all tax payers, lower crime rates, no overseas wars, lower inflation, energy independence . Then Brandon and Kamala came in and intentionally fucked everything up.

reply

Oh boy, I wish I could be THIS ignorant, I'd have such a nice life ...... until reality would hit me.

So Trump has lowered gas prices?
Curious, how did he manage to lower gas prices throughout the whole world?
Has he personally forced the oil producing countries to raise the amount of oil they dig up, or have those countries MAYBE had no other choice but try and sell more oil to maintain their economy while all economy worldwide was tanking and Trump had nothing to do with it?

reply

Oh I see so gas prices just coincidentally happened to be lower under Trump? It was a little thing called energy independence and the keystone pipeline. We were a net exporter of oil during his first term and Brandon cancelled it in his first day. Brandon wanted us to suffer , he’s a sick person. Summer 2022- we had the highest gas prices in US History, where I live they were two dollars per gallon higher than they were under Trump. All on Brandon’s watch. Pull your head out of the sand, things were way better under Trump. Democrats only care about criminals, illegal immigrants, child groomers and gender activists. They couldn’t care less about the average person who gets up at 6 am everyday to go work.

reply

So much for a claim without evidence.
Trump took office in january 2017 and here's the real data what the gas price did throughout the year 2017
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=34392

2018 and 2019 were no different, you can find plenty of statistics showing how the price increased even further.
Only in 2020 due to the Covid crash ....

********* Side Note ********
Yes Trump was the one who initiated all the lockdowns and stuff in 2020 (after he had downplayed the problem for long enough so the US had become the country with the most Covid deaths in the world) that crashed the economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States_(2020)
*****************

.... gas prices crashed back down to where they had been in 2017.

Over all 3 years of increased gas prices and one year of crash where the only thing Trump did that could pin the lower prices on him was that Trump was responsible for the depth of the crash.
The lowest gas price since 2004 was under Obama in 2016.

reply

More lies, but what can I expect from a Democrat: https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/. Hmmm, on average gas prices look pretty high except coincidentally right around 2017-2020. To claim that gas prices only dropped due to covid is a complete and total lie. They were already relatively low before Covid. Let me guess, you’re now going to claim that the President has no influence over gas prices. Smgdmfh

Trump did not initiate the lockdowns, it was Democrat governors and teacher unions. Trump did not downplay the virus at all, in fact every effort he made to contain the virus was smear as “racist” and “xenophobic” by the very same people claiming he didn’t do enough. When Trump was assembling a Covid - 19 task force guess what the Democrats were preoccupied with? That’s right, their first fake impeachment. The Democrats did nothing but play politics with the virus, they were hoping that people died from it so they could blame Trump for it.

You’re a far left Trump hater, that is abundantly obvious. You have a severe case of TDS and you need to seek help. You’re being negative and divisive, you should be uniting around your President and wish him the best because when he succeeds, America succeeds. Quit being so butthurt, show some unity, shut up and learn your place. This is Trump country now.

reply

Your own link proves you wrong, because the graph you linked to clearly shows how prices went up under Bush, came back half the way down under Obama with the lowest point in 2016, went back up 2017-2019 and then crashed in 2020 due to Covid.

But yea, what else than complete ignorance could one expect from a Republican, linking yourself to a graph that proves your own statement wrong.

But no, I'm not a Trump hater, I'm not American, I'm European and I'm having loads of popcorn while I see how Democrats and Republicans, both being hardcore right wing authoritarians, take from the middle class and give to the rich while distracting the population from their greed with side topics neither party cares about such as immigration or abortions.
They play a heavily rigged version of god cop bad cop with you and you're falling for it.
It's divide and conquer, the Romans knew how it works over 2000 years ago already, hard to believe there's a whole nation in the world that doesn't look through this nowadays.

reply

No it doesn’t, if you look at the big picture the overall average was the lowest under Trump. I also didn’t say anything about Bush, I don’t even care that much for Bush.

What can I expect from a libtard, just selectively cherry-pick whatever data you can spin to perpetuate your lies.

You are a Trump hater, and LOL not even American? So what do you care? You don’t even matter in this discussion. Don’t care about abortions? Why should we help women murder their children? WTF is wrong with you? And we do care about immigration yet the left seems to think that America is the only country that doesn’t deserve to have border laws and that we need to just allow drug cartel members, child traffickers, terrorists cross over without even being vetted.

Get over yourself buddy, you aren’t that smart nor do you matter. I’ve also found that most of the Trump haters on this forum aren’t even American, figures.

reply

I'm looking, I can see the lowest point after 2004 in 2016 and I can ask Google who was president then.
The fact that Trump took office when gas prices were the lowest in over 10 years cannot be the result of what Trump did, what Trump did resulted in the gas prices from 2017-2019, how much more logic could it get?

And your list of strawmen arguments against me won't get you anywhere, other than on my ignore list, where you'll go right now.
I never said anything about what I think about abortions, I only said neither Democrats nor Republicans care, they just use the topic to divide and conquer, to distract your from their corruption, taking from the middle class and giving to the rich.
Whether you personally care about immigration is of no concern to Democrats nor Republicans, for them it's just another welcome distraction from their corruption that keeps people like you busy arguing while they take your money.

reply

LOL wow did I call it, now you’re deflecting to the “President doesn’t have much control over gas prices” argument. Ummmm did you not look back like a year or so, they were beyond high during the majority of Obama’s presidency. Of course you just want to selectively cherry-pick (as I already pointed out) the very few data points you can spin to fit your lies.

What strawman arguments?

Ahhhh, I’m on your ignore list now? I’m so honored.

Why should anyone care about abortions? Any woman who wants to kill their own baby doesn’t deserve sympathy from anyone.

Trump does care about immigration, Brandon had the highest levels of illegal immigration in American History, it’s disgraceful and if he had done nothing and just kept the Trump policies in place the entire crisis would have been avoided. But of course he just couldn’t give Trump credit for anything. Playing politics was more important than Laken Riley’s life or anyone who was raped/murdered by one of Brandon and Kamala’s illegal immigrants.

Trump won fair and square, he will be President and you’re going to have to live with it. Suck on it.

reply

[–] MarkPh (277) 3 days ago
"Oh boy, I wish I could be THIS ignorant, I'd have such a nice life ...... until reality would hit me"


Dont let your arrogance turn you into this lady! 🤣

https://youtu.be/DJerafHxQnA?si=ldmged_VuF6QoCgy

reply

Here you go cupcake: https://www.statista.com/statistics/204740/retail-price-of-gasoline-in-the-united-states-since-1990/

They just happened to go down once Trump got in office and they just happened to go up when Trump left office.

reply

King Bob (lol) :
"drove the country into the ditch"
Just to be clear, we're talking about the US, right? (The country with the highest GDP, lowest unemployment rate and lowest inflation rate among the developed nations? What is this "ditch" of which you speak, oh mighty King?)

reply

Get your head out of the sand and take a look around you, everything about the US has gotten worse. The fact that we are still better off than let’s say Zambia is irrelevant. Crime is up, illegal immigration is up, we have more overseas wars, inflation is up, gas prices are up, grocery prices are up and it was 100 percent preventable. Or are you suggesting that since we are better off than developing nations that we need to be knocked down a peg? After all beating down the healthy is much easier than uplifting the non-wealthy, You people legitimately owe Trump voters reparations to make up for the last 4 years and the disaster of Brandon and Kamala.

reply

What a boob! All your statements are incorrect, so I'm putting you on ignore because I don't suffer fools.

reply

LOL, too much of a coward to debate me I see. You’re such a joke just like Kamala.

Get in line and support your President you insurrectionist.

MAGA 2024!!!!

reply

May if they werent preaching wasnt ultra-right conservative and Inbetween Im Green Party voter aka Third Party Middle Ground works for everyone.

reply

When Jesus reveal himself people will come back. I say reveals himself and not returns because Jesus is already here but this is not covered in the mainstream press.

reply