Debating a theologian

[Setzer]

Well, I'll look over this guy's post, and add my thoughts. Doubtless me being a godless atheist

The Church does not have to cover such people [sinful priests]. The truth will sooner or later come out. But why should be make those priests (or anybody else) to publicly declare their sins?

Isn't confessing sins kinda important to the Catholic Church? I'm not Catholic, so I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure they take a passing interest in confessing sins. Maybe.

Should they turn into medieval penitents?

It's nice to see you have such a balanced, well organized mind. Admitting their sins = flogging themselves with scourges.

Do You or I publicly declare their sins? Does anyone would want to do it today? I think that criticizing the Church as criticizing the community of priests is not a proper critique.

Wasn't Jesus' greatest vitriol towards the Pharisees? They looked down on people who admitted they had sinned, while acting like they were beyond mortal flaws. But I guess the irony is lost on you.

We critique God as well. It's not just the priests that get verbally torn a new one.

In the catholic Church, it is not the hierarchy or the priesthood that is most important Who won't understand that, sooner or later will leave the Church

So why is the Pope authorized to speak for God? Why did the Church hierarchy spend so much of its history trying to suppress religious viewpoints they didn't control?

[PeZook]

Even if you were falsely accused of molesting a child, you'd get your name and face splattered over the media.

No I wouldn't, because Poland actually has sane laws, which state that if you're accused but not convicted, the media are legally forced to blur out your face and not publically give out your last name.

Sometimes it's silly, like when they arrest somebody famous and give his name as, say, Jason B., but for John Doe Average it's a godsend.

[Edi]

Looks like that asshat is full of shit. I actually happen to have links on my work computer to articles and official documents about how it is and has been official Catholic Church doctrine to actively cover up pedophile priests and try to force the victims to silence under threat of excommunication. Those would make for good ammunition against anyone. I can post them on Monday.

[Tolya]

I asked him a question, which in my opinion, very niftly catches it all: If God commanded you to kill me, would you do it?

So far he's trying to avoid the question by making it look absurd.

Im halfway through writing my reply (long one), will keep you updated.

[Tolya]

Guys, when researching my rebuttal (this guy proposed that Catholic Church uses the latest developments of science), I came across something like "materialistic origin of human soul theory", connected to evolution. I can't find anything on the net, what is this?

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, since soul is not an observable phenommenon, but maye Im missing something?

[Tolya]

Oh, and another thing

He accused me of a tautology, when I said that you need read the Bible to obtain knowledge how to get to heaven. So, de facto, reading the bible is required to reach heaven.

How can I reply to this?

[Tolya]

oh jeez...

I gotta translate this to you. I made a small list of quotations from the Bible, showing where and how God is a murdering piece of shit.

His reply:

I feel like listening to fighting atheist I am not moved by this. There were worse things happening in the XX century. Try to move back in time and control israeli tribes with a couch and psychoanalysis

The problem is, I cannot openly call him an idiot, since stupid rules of that forum forbid that.

[Aaron]

The problem is, I cannot openly call him an idiot, since stupid rules of that forum forbid that.

Get out a thesaurus and use something else than, most miss manners forums let you call someone obtuse until the cows come home.

[Darth Wong]

The problem is, I cannot openly call him an idiot, since stupid rules of that forum forbid that.

Get out a thesaurus and use something else than, most miss manners forums let you call someone obtuse until the cows come home.

On Miss Manners forums, the best etiquette is to insult his argument rather than his person. The emotional effect is pretty much the same, but you're not attacking his person.

For example, instead of saying "You're an idiot", you could say "that was a rather uneducated thing to say". Or instead of saying "Stop being childish", you could say "that is a very childish argument to make". If the moderators are picky, you could try to phrase it in a more positive light, ie- "next time you should try doing some research before posting" or "in future, you should try to make more mature arguments".

The rules of Miss Manners forums are usually pretty easy to work within, although it's more difficult if the moderators favour your opponent, in which case they will pounce on even the slightest hint of negativity in your posts while ignoring copious amounts of it from your opponent.

[Aaron]

On Miss Manners forums, the best etiquette is to insult his argument rather than his person. The emotional effect is pretty much the same, but you're not attacking his person.

For example, instead of saying "You're an idiot", you could say "that was a rather uneducated thing to say". Or instead of saying "Stop being childish", you could say "that is a very childish argument to make". If the moderators are picky, you could try to phrase it in a more positive light, ie- "next time you should try doing some research before posting" or "in future, you should try to make more mature arguments".

The rules of Miss Manners forums are usually pretty easy to work within, although it's more difficult if the moderators favour your opponent, in which case they will pounce on even the slightest hint of negativity in your posts while ignoring copious amounts of it from your opponent.

That tactic also seems to drive them to start outright insulting you as they get frustrated. At least on DITL, I imagine milage varies depending on the forum. That's the only one I frequent.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Guys, when researching my rebuttal (this guy proposed that Catholic Church uses the latest developments of science), I came across something like "materialistic origin of human soul theory", connected to evolution. I can't find anything on the net, what is this?

Sounds like a bunch of bullshit, since soul is not an observable phenommenon, but maye Im missing something?

Sounds to me like it's just the "God used evolution to create man and then he magically put in souls" apologist byline.

[Tolya]

You will not believe this. "Teologian" conceeded.

I was about to address your arguments, but I stopped seeing sense in this. I see one thing: demanding an ideal Church with ideal christians. Well? Maybe it would be easier for God to create ideal puppets? He created people. Period.

To which I replied:

Concession accepted, "theologian".

Really, I spoke to many religious people, priests included, but none of them hid their head in the sand so quickly. Too bad, I had hoped for a normal debate.

His reply:

So nice to hear this, atheist.
a) this thread moved too far away from the actual topic
b) I do not feel obliged to reply to a total critique of religion and Church to every person I meet
c) I do not see the goal of this discussion

A bit earlier I called him to present a proof of him being a teologian. My guess is that he has a diploma, but he went there because it was easy (how hard can it be to analyze biblical bullshit and learn some philosophy). He never presented any proof of him having a teological degree.

I am actually disappointed that it ended so quickly. Tell me, when you debated a religious person on religious matters, did it always ended so abruptly?

[Darth Wong]

I am actually disappointed that it ended so quickly. Tell me, when you debated a religious person on religious matters, did it always ended so abruptly?

Sometimes. There are a few methods Christians have for shutting down debates when they can tell they're in over their heads:

1) "You are <insert attack here>. There is no point in further discussion."

2) "How dare you attack peoples' beliefs? I have better things to do than talk to angry obnoxious people like you."

3) "We can't discuss the Bible unless we both agree that it is true."

4) "You raise some very interesting points. I will talk to my youth pastor about it and then get back to you." (next time you see him, he will have developed a case of hysterical amnesia about this whole conversation)

5) "We will have to agree to disagree."

6) "<looking upwards> Lord, you give them eyes but they cannot see. <looking back to you> I will pray for you."

The fact that he shut down the conversation probably means that he knew he was in over his head, and this knowledge made him uncomfortable. Many Christians, deep down, are afraid that if they get into the wrong conversation or learn the wrong things, it will weaken their faith. So they throw up defensive walls and shut down as soon as they think they might be in one of those situations.

I will always remember Philosophy 101, way back in my university days. The subject came to the concept of the afterlife, and the professor began going through some of the philosophical problems with the afterlife as commonly conceived by Christians. As the class went on and on, the Christians in the class became quieter and quieter, until only the skeptics like myself were contributing to the discussion at all. Small wonder the Christians prefer to discuss philosophy with imaginary dumbfuck philosophy profs like the ones they create for themselves in Jack Chick cartoons.

[Tolya]

Well, the "theologian" was forced to turn on "the wall of ignorance" and started to ignore everything he couldn't respond to. Which makes most of the arguments.

I am only posting to show you what kind of "rebuttals" he now uses.

First off, the guy believes that education and upbringing has no effect on your life, so breaking with faith when being an adult is easily accessible by everyone.

Secondly, he rambles something about "gnosis" that I didn't reach so I could become a real atheist (wtf? can anyone explain this shit to me, because this is beyond my mental capacity) and "I should have thought". Dunno about what.

By another believer I was asked, what the hell am I on. Apparently the guy believes that because HE cannot look on this world other than through faith, then I must be on some sort of drugs.

[Rye]

The "gnosis" thing sounds like that tired old bullshit about you not "knowing" he doesn't exist. Of course, knowledge and belief are not interchangable terms, and it is quite possible and reasonable to believe unfalsifiable claims are false, but I'm sure I don't need to tell you that.

[Tolya]

Yes, but that sounded so out of this world that I had to make sure.

Besides, those guys wouldn't know the burden of proof if it hit them in the face.

[Ted C]

For what it's worth...

Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈnō-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnōsis, literally, knowledge, from gignōskein
Date: 1703
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

[Tolya]

For what it's worth...

Main Entry: gno·sis
Pronunciation: \ˈnō-səs\
Function: noun
Etymology: Greek gnōsis, literally, knowledge, from gignōskein
Date: 1703
: esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth held by the ancient Gnostics to be essential to salvation

Yes, I know, but putting together atheism and gnosticism seems a bit out of this world, doesn't it?

[Alerik the Fortunate]

They (fundies and their ilk) tend to see that as disproof of atheism as logically inconsistent. Since you can't know something certainly without divine levels of knowledge, then disbelieving in God with any certainty requires either knowing God or being God. QED