Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a discussion with a Catholic

I’ve recently been crossing swords with a Roman Catholic, Christina Chase. She has a blog and I commented on a poem she wrote. Then we ended up chatting in the comments. This gave me a chance to become more familiar with Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics. This is evidently the last of the discussion (her prior response). Ms. Chase is under a deadline for her next book.

It took some research that I wanted to keep, so I’ve plopped it up here. As usual, much of this is a repeat of tearing apart of the usual apologetics.

And thus it commences:

So, Christina, what did happen if you weren’t just one more Christian who went back to her religion when she realized she was mortal?  It seems that you left your religion, perhaps because of your illness, realized that it wasn’t any different and decided that you needed an afterlife since one wasn’t that great.

And nice attempts to claim you are trying to be “fair” to me when you also try to claim that I’ve lied e.g. “made crooked”.  It is no surprise at all that you will pick and choose what to reply to.  That is typical for Christians when hard questions are answered and is your right.  If subjects are addressed in your books, then you should be able to tell me where. 

You did claim that atheists only make emotional choices.  Shall I quote you?  “I do sense that you may have experienced some real pain or grief, and if that is so, you have my sympathy. Pain and grief can easily make us angry. I’m sure that you must be aware that you are coming across as a stereotypical angry and embittered atheist, but you may not understand that this is not productive to your cause. I won’t treat you like a stereotype, however. You are a unique, individual, unrepeatable human being.” 

Indeed, Christina, you repeatedly make false statements about atheists “ I enjoyed being an atheist because it was so simple, and because, with no meaning to life, I could simply do as I please.”

“Then, something unexpected happened that caused me, as a lover of truth, to no longer be an atheist. “

Unsurprisingly, you do again try to claim that I’m just another “angry and embittered atheist”.  Funny how that is repeated even when you claim that you are sure I’m not.   Why is this?  For me, it seems to be this is all you have to try to imply that atheists never can have any other reason.  And yep, atheists do have to often tell theists tht they didn’t become an atheist out of anger because people like you keep trying to spread that lie.  You are one of the atheists who finds she must make that assumption. 

Do explain how a being that harms others as your god is described do to in the bible is not a “vicious bastard”?   Does genocide qualify? Does drowning animals to get revenge on humans qualify?  I use words to have impact not because of my feelings.  I knew that you would find the term vicious bastard applied to your god to be questionable.  I did it to ask you these further questions.  What would you call someone who committed genocide, killed children for what their parents did, allowed a family to be killed so he could show off to an enemy?   Since none of this happened, I cannot be emotional about it.  But I can certainly look at it as an empathic human, much the same as I can empathize with characters in things like Star Wars where genocide happen. 

I have corrected you.  Did you listen?   Well, you repeated the same nonsense about atheists. 

Let’s look at your words about love “You and I know that you can’t scientifically prove the nonexistence of a personal God. You may believe that the burden of proof falls on me, but do you use a method of doubt in every aspect of your life? I don’t think so, because if you did, you would not have written that you can see love through the actions of human beings. Humans can lie, humans can even lie with their actions. I’m sure you don’t have loved ones in your life get a brain scan to make sure that the right parts of their brain are lighting up to give evidence of what we call affection before you believe that they love you. Maybe you do want to do that, I don’t know. Like it or not, sane, intelligent, normal human beings go by faith quite often in our daily lives — not blind faith. Faith based in reason.” 

So we have you claiming that people who love me can lie to me, and that I somehow have to have faith that they don’t to believe them.  I do not, since I can see that they love me. It is not faith, it is evidence.   I never said cannot, Christina as you claimed “I believe what I see,” you continued. “and one can not see love easily.” “   Go back and read it again “Humans can lie. Per the bible, so can your god. And nice to see you try to claim that people are lying to me if they say they love me. It’s not faith, it’s trust. I believe what I see. And one can see love easily. If you can’t tell if someone loves you, that is your problem, not mine. Your belief aka faith in a magical god is not based on reason. It is based on hope and desire for something better than you have now.”

Did you intend on misrepresenting what I said?  I hope not. 

You have said this directly “As I told you, I was briefly an atheist. I was a thorough, true atheist for less than a year. Then, something unexpected happened that caused me, as a lover of truth, to no longer be an atheist. “  The “as a lover of truth” doesn’t need to be in there.  Why is it?  No, my love of truth didn’t lead me to atheism.  Evidence did.  I followed the evidence; I didn’t have a presupposition of some “truth” to fit the evidence to.   The claim of a “lover of truth” implies baselessly that others aren’t concerned with the truth aka if this happened to you and you didn’t accept it, then you aren’t a “Lover of truth”. 

Many theists of all faiths claim what you do, feelings of some “infinite”.  Now, do you believe them if they do not agree with the source?  Why or why not?  I do have to wonder that this feeling does seem to be assigned to your god, since that is what is familiar with you.  What shows that this feeling is from the version of the Chrsitian god you grew up with rather than some other god? 

Feelings of awe seem to happen to most people.  Why think it is from some entity?  Humans can make feelings appear with just electrical current.  No god needed.  And now you try to claim this “do not expect you to understand this or to even want to understand this in your current state.”

What is my “current state”, Christina?   Your assumption of anger and bitterness? 

I did not contradict myself, Christina.  I do not do what I want, because I do not believe in free will, and I know that somethings I want aren’t the best for me or society.  I don’t think you know what I mean at all.  Penn Jillette contradicts you, and the Christian nonsense that non-chrisitans just don’t want to obey their god, that we are ravening thoughtless creatures.

“So to continue, you also wrote: “We are just as compassionate, law-abiding and caring as any theist.”That’s a good point and I do not disagree. “

Do you agree with me on this?  You said this “I enjoyed being an atheist because it was so simple, and because, with no meaning to life, I could simply do as I please.”   You seem to think again that only you have real love, Christina “ I did what pleased me (thankfully, it pleases me to be generally good) without thinking about any kind of eternal me or what it actually means to love divinely.”

If you think I need the benefit of the doubt, then I have to again wonder about your assumptions about atheists. 

Atheists aren’t nihilists, Christina.  Many Christians feel that they need to claim that to vilify us.  Humans do give meaning to life.  Our worldviews that we’ve created do.   No gods needed.  Yes, I do mean that me, as an atheist who has meaning, shows that your claim that meaning only comes from your god is wrong.  You have yet to show that there is “divine love” or that your god supplies it.  You seem to be only inventing that term to feel special and superior.   Yes, I do think that it does take arrogance and a neediness to declare that I need you or your god to love and be loved.  You are doing it right where you claim “God is needed to know the depths of divine love” 

I am here to demonstrate that Christians aren’t above reproach, and that they make harmful and false claims and to confront them about those claims.  Society has mistakenly assumed that gods are true and that if someone claims worship something, that makes them better than anyone else.  Religions have encouraged this by making baseless claims on how they are the source of all love, truth, goodness, etc.  I aim to kick the legs out from under those false claims.  Will I be successful?  Well, religion is losing ground because people can speak out now, and not be completely terrified that some theist will try to kill them, lock them up, etc for being “heretics”. 

I have shown that the claims of Christians about having some objective truth are false.  I believe that you need to hope that some magical afterlife exists.  You are rather like Joni Eareckson Tada whom I read about when I was young.  I can very much understand that you must hope that there is a reason for you being disabled.  I think you would be better off dealing with reality than a forlorn hope.  However, I can understand that it is a harsh reality and a hope is very appealing. 

No, no help or harassment needed.  Only an example to push against. 

If we are limited, then what makes you think you have the right answer when claiming a god exists?

I think Rumi is a very interesting poet. I’m also interested mysticism but alas have yet to see evidence that any of the claims of theistic humans are true.  It’s all humans trying to convince others that their opinions are supported by some powerful being. 

There is no evidence of your god or that it is outside of space/time so we don’t need to consider human confusion evidence or not.  We just have to see that as soon as humans can’t show evidence, then their gods immediately become mysterious and vague.  Just how does an entity be outside of space/time, know when to start something, Christina?  Christians just try to say “we don’t understand but my god has to exist”.  A non-christian has to point out “no your god doesn’t have to exist and why shouldn’t we understand?”

Saying you are a member of the Catholic Church doesn’t mean much anymore since schism is there too.  Every Christian wants to claim that they are the “catholic” followers of Christ.  None can show this to be true. 

“We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”612 Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.613 To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.614 Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”615 and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”616”

Seems like your sect is indeed saying what you say it is not “Contrary to the common belief that you expressed as nonsense, the Catholic Church does not teach that everybody who isn’t Catholic is absolutely going to Hell. (See Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 846-856.)”  For most of its existence, the RCC claimed “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” Then Vatican II came along and evidently God was mumbling at some point, since it was declared “though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.”” 

Then we have Roman Catholics saying this “Can only Catholics go to heaven? – The Leaven Catholic Newspaper”  “I think we would still say there is no salvation outside the church,” he continued, “but what we mean by that is that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, as he said.“He’s it. So, if there’s salvation, it’s in him.“If I am saved, I am saved by Jesus Christ and no one else.” 

The problem here, as I’ve mentioned before, is that Christians do not agree on how JC is “the way, the truth and the life”.  Each of you has your belief that your version is the only way to correctly follow Christ and you define “grave sin”.  “But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves”.  Christians do show that they hate each other when they say that they deserve eternal torture.     

The Lumen Gentium also says “Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved.”   This is also interesting “THE HOLY SPIRIT’S PRESENCE AMONG OTHER CHRISTIANS Eleuterio F. Fortino” on the vatican’s website. 

Your claim that you haven’t made a study of miracles seems very strange for someone who said she prayed for her god to heal her miraculously.  To not want to know why it fails seems unusual.  Why does one need to be a specialist in miracles to discuss them?   You seem to be trying to take refuge in the “sophisticated theology” idea, that there has to be some truth in baseless claims, if one just studied it “enough”

I find it quite specious when you say you don’t know if you’d be happier in a whole body.  It’s rather like someone saying “I don’t know if I’d be happier if I won a million dollars”, when that person has no chance of willing a million dollars.  It’s a fox and the grapes argument. 

Your life is easy thanks to human ingenuity.  And one can know about patience and empathy without suffering constant UTIs, etc.  I used to work for an an agency that regulated nursing homes and have read many case histories on people who are afflicted as you are.  

Yes, Christina, with no exceptions.   As I have already stated, it does have be for believers and surprise, that doesn’t happen either.   And there is not one place where JC says these prayers have to be per this god’s will aka plan aka reason to know that there is no free will in your bible. 

This is one of the big reasons I do take the time to show how ignorant Christianity is.  You must always blame the victim for this god’s failure.  Someone doesn’t have the “right” faith, prayer, sect, etc and this god won’t heal them.   Consider this, if I was omnipotent, and omniscient, I would heal them.  I’d heal you.  I wouldn’t need misery or pain to teach people.

Yep, there is indeed that story where JC, like any charlatan, cannot do miracles because people don’t believe enough.  I’ve had plenty of Christians claim that their god needs powered up and I’ve also had plenty of wannabee mystics claim that they can’t do their  magic with unbelievers around.   They ran away too, just like JC. 

So much for omnipotence.   And do read your bible, Christina:

Then Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor, except in their hometown, and among their own kin, and in their own house.” And he could do no deed of power there, except that he laid his hands on a few sick people and cured them. And he was amazed at their unbelief.” Mark 6

and the same story in “57 And they took offense at him. But Jesus said to them, “Prophets are not without honor except in their own country and in their own house.” 58 And he did not do many deeds of power there, because of their unbelief.”

still doing miracles in both.

I’m finding it amusing that you now only seem to have complaints about how I cite verses.  I’ve read the chapters too and yep, they are still about healing physical problems.  Yep, the chapters mention other things, but not in the context of what is being claimed about physical healing and answering every prayer with what is prayed for.  Those verses in John 14 are still about healing and any prayer being answered: “Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me[e] for anything, I will do it.” John 14. 

No one has said you must respond to me or respond quickly.  You are responsible for what  you do.

23 thoughts on “Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – a discussion with a Catholic

  1. You find Rumi to be an interesting poet, too? I’ve seen quotes by Rumi, and they’re quite interesting, but I’ve never seen anything more than quotes.

    (By the way, I, personally, do not think that ‘thinking’ and making decisions emotionally is any more likely to lead one wrong or anymore to be looked down upon than most any other method of thinking or deciding.)


    1. “(By the way, I, personally, do not think that ‘thinking’ and making decisions emotionally is any more likely to lead one wrong or anymore to be looked down upon than most any other method of thinking or deciding.)”

      Making emotional decisions can lead to thoughtless decisions made out of passion, not consideration. If you make decisions made on baseless nonsense, then people die. Witness the stupidity of the anti-vaxxers, anti-mask people and those who want to pretend the covid virus doesn’t exist since their personal opinions are then found wrong.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Passion can also lead to right decisions, like saving a child from being run over by car. And deliberated reason can lead to making wrong decisions. I’m not saying emotional thinking and decision-making is better than a more logical approach. I think both have strengths and weaknesses.


      2. It’s not. It’s just a one word for intense emotion of various sorts. And I think people can make good decisions as well as bad ones based off intense emotions and I think the same is true for any method of thinking/decision making.


      3. okay. However, I do not see emotion being the only reason that someone would save someone else.

        where has someone made a “bad decision” based on facts, Raina?


      4. I’m not saying it’s the only reason someone might save someone’s life. I’m saying it is a reason, and a reason which so-to-speak act quicker.

        Where the facts are misunderstood or misinterpreted, very often.


      5. so it’s only if the facts are “misinterpreted”. And no it’s not “very often”. All decisions must be made on facts or they will not be the right answer.


      6. Yes, and no. All decisions are made on facts; it’s a fact to be able to run or for a child to be in a street. But deliberated reasoning and logic can definitely lead one to wrong conclusions or actions, just as emotions can be mis-oriented.


      7. “Yes, and no. All decisions are made on facts; it’s a fact to be able to run or for a child to be in a street. But deliberated reasoning and logic can definitely lead one to wrong conclusions or actions, just as emotions can be mis-oriented.”

        give an example of this “But deliberated reasoning and logic can definitely lead one to wrong conclusions or actions, just as emotions can be mis-oriented.”


      1. it’s a great source to find all sorts of books. You can find old science fiction and fantasy, books by various philosophers, etc. I read most of the Edgar Rice Burroughs books on project gutenberg.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Alan needs attention:

    Well, this looks like fun. Yep, I replied to the claims of Christine Chase. I’ve also responded to Alan before. He uses the same failed arguments here too. But I’m bored and this can fill some time.

    “Always be wary of someone who’s commenting on something that they’re becoming ‘more familiar’ with; never respond to something that you aren’t totally familiar with, you may end up creating a lot of straw man arguments. Also, slightly offended, Club has replied to me, a Catholic, several times. Unfortunately, Club decided not to post Christina’s responses on her own post- frustrating.”

    Poor Alan, he can’t take the time to read his fellow Catholic’s posts. Darn. Alas, I’ve not created any strawman arguments, though Alan really wishes I had.

    “It’s always a writers choice in regards to who they respond to. Not having a response, or not providing a response, isn’t the same as there being no response that can be given.

    Alan seems to have missed this bit “That is typical for Christians when hard questions are answered and is your right “ In this case, there is no response that can be given. If there was, one would assume that the Christian would give it if it were an answer. To claim otherwise is rather childish, “but but, I have an answer, but I’m not going to tell you.” Of course, Alan wants an excuse to avoid the problems his religion has.

    Again, Alan does seem to need to lie, and claim that when Christine claimed I have only emotional reasons, there was no “hint” of this. That’s very funny considering what Christine said ““I do sense that you may have experienced some real pain or grief, and if that is so, you have my sympathy. Pain and grief can easily make us angry. I’m sure that you must be aware that you are coming across as a stereotypical angry and embittered atheist, but you may not understand that this is not productive to your cause. I won’t treat you like a stereotype, however. You are a unique, individual, unrepeatable human being.”

    The attempt to “interpret” what Christine said is quite a lovely example of how Christians are poor interpreters. It does explain their bible interpretations. It’s grand to see such excuses being made. Christine does nothing more than claim she somehow “senses” something to find an excuse to try to ignore my points.

    Unlike what Alan is trying to cover up, theists always claim that atheists don’t want to follow their god since they want to do what they want. Christine used that exact stereotype in her claim about being an atheist. She was not sharing a “subjective truth” about herself. Alas, Alan, theists themselves have shown you to be a liar in your own right.

    Christine did repeat the claim, but alas Alan finds he must claim otherwise. How strange.

    I do love Alan’s usual apologetics for his god. “God caused life, God has sovereignty over life- it’s that simple. If no life would exist without God, what right do we have to try to convince God that we deserve a greater extent of it? I always find at strange when an atheist suggests that God is objectively evil, but cannot provide evidence for objective morality in atheistic materialism. Why is killing bad? Where in science do we find the notion of a right to life? Let me expand: what makes humans, above all of creation, valuable? Sentience? Emotion and intelligence? Creativity and will? Whatever it is, the reason can’t be provided as an objective fact, only that particular atheists opinion.”

    He tries the claim that his god can kill since it created. Hmm, nothing more than might equals right there. I don’t claim that this god is objectively evil. It is evil, and evil and good are indeed subjective. We see that since poor Alan has no morals except might equals right, that his god can do anything that it says a human shouldn’t do. That’s a subjective morality, dependent on what something is rather than the objective action. Humans aren’t valuable above all “creation”. That’s Alan’s opinion. Morals come from humans, the ones that don’t help civilization work are tossed, the ones that do are kept. Humans have had morals long before the nonsense invented by some ignorant people in the eastern Med.

    I love Christians who are apologists for a genocidal character. They are no more than sycophants to a tyrant. It’s even better when Christians can’t agree on what morals their god even wants.

    Faith and trust are not complete synonyms. They have different connotations. In this context, faith is believing without evidence. Trust : assured (characterized by certainty or security) reliance on the character, ability, strength, or truth of someone or something and faith: belief and trust in and loyalty to God(2): belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion –

    Alas, Alan can’t show in my words a circular reasoning. He had to make one up on his own, a lie. I never said this “- I trust people that love me, they love me and so I trust them.” It is great to see yet one more Christian who can’t see love. His analogy is indeed cheap and fails. It’s rather easy to tell the difference between a actor and real life. I’m sorry that Alan can’t seem to do that. He has to pretend everyone has an ulterior motive it seems. That’s sad. He has to pretend only his god “really” loves him.

    Unsurprisingly, Alan doesn’t understand yet something else that would show that not only Christians are lovers of truth. Like Christine, he wants to play the game of comments that only lovers of truth are Christians. In this context, that one should believe in Christine’s experience without question, Alan and Christine would indeed think that atheists, muslims, Sikhs etc aren’t loving the truth. They both believe that they and only they have the truth aka the Catholic Church. It’s also fun to watch someone try to claim that there is some objective truth but somehow we might not “interpret” it correctly. As I expected, Alan does gives lie to his own claim: “So the Sikh can interpret the truth his way, I my own- we aren’t both correct, but we can both claim to love the truth subjectively, even if we don’t have that objective truth.”

    Again, we have following the evidence, and finding out where it ends, and Alan and Christine who assume that they have the truth and loving only that.

    The existence of multiple religions doesn’t disprove all religion. That one religion has a hundred+ different sects and can’t show that any of them are true, disproves Christianity quite nicely since neither Alan or Christine can do what their messiah promised every Christian can do.

    Most, if not all, religions claim the same thing Alan tries. “The Bible says that creation declares God’s glory”. Nice to see that Alan points out how missionaries damn people, if this god is real. “and those who never heard the Gospel will be judged by their own conscience” and Um, yes it does “Assigning these feelings of wonder and awe to a different deity doesn’t suggest that there’s no one divine source.” Since Christians can’t show that their god is any more real than the next. Alan is indeed arguing for his version of his god at this point. I love the disingenuousness.

    Alas, Alan’s usual willful ignorance bites him again. Humans can cause emotions with electrical current. A quick search results in papers and articles “The modulating effects of brain stimulation on emotion regulation and decision-making”, “Brain Stimulation’s Complex Emotional Effects” (Discover Magazine), “Subthalamic Nucleus Deep Brain Stimulation Alters Prefrontal Correlates of Emotion Induction”, “Brain stimulation may increase control of emotional actions”, “Is deep brain stimulation effective and safe for patients with obsessive compulsive disorder and comorbid bipolar disorder?“, etc. It’s hilarious to see Alan lie about how the brain works. It’s those neurons that make the mind and the thoughts/emotions within it. There is no objective standard of regality, majesty or beauty. Alan fails again. And if there were? We are all humans with brains, no magic god or soul needed. No brain, no mind. If there were a “soul” that interacted with the brain, then we should be able to sense it with other electrical apparatuses. We can’t. Despite a couple of hundred years of searching, no soul.

    I do not believe in free will and yep, I may not be entirely freely rejecting Alan’s and Christine’s and every other theist’s god. Alas, Alan and Christine and every other theist can’t show a god exists at all, they don’t even agree with each other. However, I have the scientific method that helps cut through any biases and gives facts. Alan and Christine have none. Per their bible, their god has already chosen who can accept this god and who can’t, those who can’t damned through no fault of their own. No free will there either. Tsk. Alan and Christine aren’t really Christians, they are just puppets of their god, a way to masturbate.

    Alas, Alan keeps on lying. He agrees that atheists have meaning to live, but he lies when he says that we need his version of his god to love and be loved. Happily, that’s not the case. That’s just a greedy Christian needing to pretend his god is responsible for everything and not being able to show it. “Still, God is required in order for my lungs to ‘be’, faith in God is not.” Nope, not at all. Again, a selfish greedy theist saying this, that’s all. The meaning to life for a Christian is stroking off their god. It’s not “the” meaning to life; here isn’t a single one. We all have our own.

    Christians do wish to think they are above reproach when they try to spread their false claims. Alan is right here “It isn’t harmful to claim that God exists, unless we’re talking about some subjective view of harm that atheists don’t like us saying it.” Yep, what they claim will happen to people from their god is indeed subjective. There is no evidence for it at all. So their lies that some god will punish someone does harm them by making them think that they are wrong.

    Then we have more lies from Alan. No, his god isn’t the source of love. No evidence for that at all. And yep, other religions make that claim too, with the same lack of evidence. Suicide isn’t wrong, so of course religious countries have less since they have the lie of hell to keep people from doing it. No one will go to hell for taking their own life. And funny how plenty of Christians commit suicide. I guess this god doesn’t help you through all things.

    Religion is losing ground and that is why Christians are desperately trying to convert people even other Christians. Yep, is truth based on how many people believe something? Most Christians think yes it does. They always trot out the billions of Christians. Funny how most of them are sure that most of those Christians aren’t Christians at all. I would affirm if Christianity gained ground. And Alan is right, the number of believer is meaningless on how true the religion is. So as soon as Islam over takes Christianity, he has a problem. The number of Christians has decreased every year for a while now. We still have the problem in the US where people like Alan and Christine lie about atheists and make them out to be less than trustworthy. Happily, that will eventually end. Nice appeal to popularity, Alan.

    “As a disabled person myself (CP), I can tell you that disability doesn’t cause us to hope for Heaven. In fact, it should do the opposite. I should hate God for intending to create me with disability, but I don’t. God created me with CP in order that able, successful atheists are left without excuse when they claim they had no reason to believe.”
    Hmmm. Alan does have a point, if he is right, his god made him this way. What a pathetic god. I certainly have no reason to believe in a god like that ,and if it were real, I wouldn’t worship such an ass. So, Alan’s god hurt him *and* Alan’s god failed to provide evidence of itself.

    Religion, as I stated, is humans trying to convince others that their fantasies are true. Alan and Christine failed to do that, and atheist still have our reality. Yep, a reality with no need for a god and that does not exist by “chance”. Alan just can’t get past that lie. He also, well, let him say it “I’ll take my belief that my logic and reason rests upon my mind being created by an omnipotent, omniscient God for the sole purpose of understanding the reality He caused, thanks.” Funny how he abuses that mind and spreads lies.

    Here, Alan shows that he can’t show his claims are true: “What would evidence for a being that exists outside of time/space look like? Would the evidence also be external of time and space? Could we even find it?” Indeed, what would evidence for that be? Yet, Alan and Christians claim that they do have evidence.

    Alan himself has no evidence that his god exists or is outside of time/space. His bible does put his god right here in time and space. If there is no time, then there is no time no sequence of events to do anything. Again, the incoherence of a god fails the believer. That the bible doesn’t say anything about a trinity, well, that was made up by incompetent translators and Christians are stuck with it in their cult.

    Since we see no evidence of god, then yep, it does mean that said thing doesn’t exist in actuality.

    Finally, we come to Alan claiming that Catholics aren’t exclusive (they are and claim no salvation outside theh church), and that Catholics don’t disagree. We know that just from TrueCatholics™ disagreeing with the Pope. Yep, the dirty laundry of the RCC got exposed when they got a pope who didn’t agree with the conservative Catholics. Bummer.


      1. It seems the site owner/admin is off somewhere with a Bishop, so there seems little to no moderation. For now!
        It’s a case of making hay while the sin(sic) shines, for as sure as Mary was not knocked up by a ghost I will eventually be banned.,
        However … ’til then!


Leave a Reply (depending on current posters, posts may be moderated, individually or en masse. It may take a day or two for a comment to be released so don't panic). Remember, I control the horizontal, I control the vertical. And also realize, any blog owner can see the IP address and email address of a commenter.)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.