Category: not so polite dinner conversation

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – christians are indeed atheists

Doug Beaumont has a Phd in Theology, though I’m not quite certain where from.  HE lists “North-West University” which may be one in the US or a Christian university in south Africa. 

He also is a catholic and is an apologist.  He has written a blog post about Christians being atheists, which they do hate to be called, even though they are atheists.  It’s like they think they can catch cooties from the word.  They seem unable to grasp they can be a theist and an atheist at the same time. 

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts

In discussions over the existence of God, many atheists seem to assume that anything that can be labeled “god” counts toward what informed Christians mean by the term. I’ve seen more than one atheist in a debate say that with the thousands of gods on offer from the world’s religions, atheists only disbelieve in one more of them than Christians do – and if Christians were consistent, they’d be atheists about their god too. This is a dim-witted argument on multiple counts (e.g., affirming any “X” excludes all “Non-X’s,” so this would be like an anarchist saying he just believes in one fewer government than Democrats do). However, besides reflecting poor reasoning, it also reveals ignorance as to what a Christian means (or should mean) when he speaks of “God.””

This is a common claim by Christians, that only they can define “god”, and only they have the one real god.   Alas, they can’t show that to be true.  Anyone can use their excuses why these other gods can’t be found either.   I find that a large problem for Christians: they use the same arguments for their god as other theists and they refuse to accept those arguments *unless* they are about their particular god (which they can’t even agree on among themselves).   They also use the same arguments against other gods that atheists do, but don’t see how those arguments apply to their god. 

“Even if they existed, beings such as Odin, Zeus, or Thor cannot be the God of creation. At best they would be very powerful sub-creations and thus part of the natural order. The creator God is metaphysically distinct from them or any other natural thing (i.e., super-natural). Once this is understood, the absurd nature of the above claim becomes apparent. Moreover, the existence of this kind of God is not simply a matter of biblical interpretation or theological tradition – it is solidly based in philosophical principles derived from creation itself.”

Doug seems to think as long as he makes a statement, everyone has to accept it as true.  Nope, this is the common Christian claim that only their god fits….the definition of god they’ve made up in their need to eliminate competition with other gods.  Christians to love to try to change the meaning of words when their claims fail.  All Doug has is presupposition, and the baseless assumption that creation can only happen with one god, and only a god as he describes it.  With no evidence, he has nothing. 

“Now, Thomas Aquinas wrote what might amount to a doctoral dissertation on this subject but we don’t have time for that here. (If you want to get it straight from him, the book is called On Being and Essence). I’ll summarize the relevant points here in a way that I hope will make sense to non-philosophers. We start with a simple and, I think, obvious principle:

A thing’s essence and existence are distinct.”

No, Aquinas didn’t write a doctoral dissertation.  Those need to be supported with facts.  Aquinas wrote a very long set of baseless opinions. 

“The term “essence,” as it is used here, refers to what a thing is. My essence is humanness, a horse’s essence is horseness. You get the point. “Existence,” on the other hand, here refers to whether or not there is a certain thing. The important thing to grasp is that essences do not automatically exist just because we know what they are. In fact, we could not know if something existed unless we first knew what it was.”

This is the usual double talk of a Catholic philosopher.  If there is no existence, there is no essence to be defined.  Again, metaphysics is invoked, something that no one can show exists. 

“So for example, a horse in a field is an essence with existence. A dinosaur is an essence without existence (there must be an essence or we wouldn’t know what a dinosaur is to deny that there are any). A phoenix is an essence that never had existence. Etc.”

This is more typical baseless nonsense, and we can see here how Doug is trying to define his god into existence.  This is no more than the ontological argument, which requires as a presupposition, that only one god can exist.  No evidence for that at all. 

“Because we can have essences that do not have existence (like the character Harry Potter whose essence is human but who does not have existence), essence and existence cannot be equivalent. Moreover, since a thing’s essence and existence are distinct, then:
If an essence has existence it must have received it from another.

A “bare essence” without existence does not, by definition, exist – and non-existent things can’t be the cause of anything (much less themselves). So if an essence has received existence, it must have come from some other essence that already had existence (it would have to exist in order to accomplish this feat). But now we run into a problem – because how did THAT thing get its existence?”

Here we have Doug failing for that very old reason, special pleading.  A Christian can’t argue for his god without it.  How did this god get its existence? Oh yes, it is somehow not part of the requirements that Doug puts on things to eliminate anyone but his favorite god. 

“We still cannot say this other essence got existence from itself – and if we say it came from another, then we enter into an infinite regress of causes. There are two problems with infinite regresses. First, there cannot be an infinite series of things, because infinity is not a number (crazy paradoxes arise when we try to treat infinity like a number – see Hibert’s Hotel or Zeno’s paradoxes for example). Second, even an infinite chain of essences causing other essences would not explain the chain. It would be like trying to explain the motion of rail cars that cannot move by themselves. Adding more doesn’t help! Eventually you need to have something that can move itself – something that doesn’t just have motion, but has it essentially ( it because of what it is – i.e., a train engine). So,
There cannot be an infinite series of existing-giving essences.

“In a similar fashion with the engine and rail cars, since every essence-existence combination cannot be explained by another, there must be a cause which exists because of what it is – a thing in which essence and existence are not distinct (and therefore require no cause to join them together). Therefore,

This cause would not have existence – it would be existence.”

That is another baseless claim.  Doug cannot show this to be true.  He admits that infinity is a hard idea to grasp and there is no reason to think he has.  All he has now is the “first cause” argument.  Nothing new as usual from an apologist. 

“The final piece of the puzzle here involves noting that pure existence is boundless. This is no mere assertion – what limits existence is always essence. The existence of the man, horse, and sun do not overlap – they are not shared. The existence of a thing is limited to what it is – a thing’s essence limits its existence. However, a being who joins existence to essences (i.e., creates) and whose essence is existence would be unlimited….infinite….pure spirit…
This infinite spirit can only be the creator God.”

This is indeed a mere assertion, though Doug really tries to convince everyone it isn’t.  He can’t show his “essence” concept is required or exists at all.  His nonsense is built on this one baseless claim.  It is quite a house of cards.  He also can’t define what “spirit” is either, which is the usual attempt at slight of hand by a theist. 

“This unlimited creator is, of course, God. Thus, when God’s essence is described as various attributes – each must be understood as being without limit. This is why the theologically sophisticated list of God’s attributes traditionally are formed by prefixing the principle attribute in such a way as to highlight lack of limitation either positively (e.g., omni-, all-,) or negatively (e.g., a-, e-, im-, in-). Thus, the Christian God is not accurately described as an old man in Heaven or a towering figure throwing a hammer around. He is infinite spirit, immutable, eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, etc.“

Yep, surprise, his definition ends up with his god.   And he can’t show his god exists at all.  Indeed, the bible, his ownly source of knowledge about this character, has it being quite a bit less than omnipotent, omniscient, immutable, etc.   He has to ignore his bible to get to his god. 

“The fact of the existence of a universe of things that do not exist simply because of what they are (their essence) shows that there must a cause exist whose essence is existence. Further, it shows that there can only be one of them (because unlimitedness cannot be multiplied). When we understand that this unlimited, infinite, first cause is the creator traditionally affirmed by Christianity, we see that comparing the true God to the “gods” of other religions is to commit a category mistake.”

This last paragraph makes precious little sense, and it’s because of Doug’s unsupported claim of “essence”.  He also claims that “unlimitedness” can’t be more than one, which also isn’t supported, since an equal “unlimitedness” can exist in multitudes.  He again has to create a supposed set of requirements that only apply to his god. 

There is no “category” mistake at all, a common thing Christians try to run to.  The Christian god is not the one that Doug has invented to try to make it appear “better” than all of the rest.  He, and most, if not all other theists are indeed atheists.  Not one of them has the only and only god, and they all are quite sure that other gods aren’t real. 

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – claims of “design” and how they fail

The typical claims of “intelligent design” have raised their ugly head again. I caught this blog post which mentioned this youtube video


unsurprisingly, any comments disappear since they show this nonsense to be false. It’s always fun to see just how much “faith” these christians have in their claims. FYI, Collins is a professor at Messiah University, a christian college quite near me.

You can see a lovely take-down of Collins’ claims here on infidels.org, The Case for Cosmic Design. The essays for an against follow each other.

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – those idiot theocrats again

There’s a good article, and video at the same link, of how far more Americans than you’d think want a “Christian” theocracy.

here’s a direct link to the PRRI report mentioned: “A Christian Nation? Understanding the Threat of Christian Nationalism to American Democracy and Culture”

The problem for them is that they don’t agree on what version of Christianity they want. Alas, the poor dears would have the quickest civil war the world would ever see if they got their wish. Hmm, how would things break down, catholics with mormons? IFB lunatics with evangelicals?

So much for “turn the other cheek”, eh?

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – just some interactions with theists

To start off with, we have a christain who is indignant that his god is called a terrorist and a committer of genocide. It’s no surprise that this chrsitain must lie about things, and cite long disproven claims. For his bibliography, he “forgets” to mention that this “JAR-BURIAL CUSTOMS AND THE QUESTION OF INFANT SACRIFICE IN PALESTINE: W. H. WOOD, PH.D.” is from 1910.

“While the people of Israel were traveling across the desert on their way to the land that God had promised, the Amalekites ruthlessly attacked from the rear where the elderly, sick and handicapped, women, children, and animals came along at a much slower pace. The Amalekites intentionally came up from behind so that they could kill as many of the helpless people of Israel as possible. After this great slaughter of the Israelites by the Amalekites, the God of Israel reminded them that He would do to the Amalekites, what they did to the people of Israel”

unsurprisngly, no evidence for this claim at all. And “helpless”? They do have an omnipotent god caring for them, right? We also have this christian claiming that the Amalekites attached from the rear. Unsurpisingly, the bible doesn’t say that: “8 Then Amalek came and fought with Israel at Rephidim. 9 Moses said to Joshua, “Choose some men for us and go out; fight with Amalek. Tomorrow I will stand on the top of the hill with the staff of God in my hand.”” This is the infamous incident when god magic only works if you use somatic components, e.g. keep your hands in the air. What’s funny about this is that the same story is claimed to be told in Deuteeronomy and gee, the stories don’t match. The “attackign from the rear” is added later. “17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on your journey out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way, when you were faint and weary, and struck down all who lagged behind you; he did not fear God.” Deut 25.

terror: 1. a state of intense or overwhelming fear 2. violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

terrorism: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

terrorist: an advocate or practitioner of terrorism as a means of coercion

god uses threats of death and eternal punishment to get what it wants in the stories. It is definitely a terrorist.

“Our God is filled with love, patience, and kindness. He is also a God of justice and He said, “My Spirit will not always strive with man” (Gen. 6:3). When God warns us to repent and cease our evil, there is a time that He allows us to change our mind, repent, and end our sins. If we do not, we will experience the judgment of God.”

quite a set of false claism considering what the bible actually says. This god has no love since love doesn’t contain the need for eternally torturing someone who disagrees with you. This god has no patience since it throws a tantrum in Eden. It made a mistake in making humans amoral and then blames them for what it did. It then fails repeatedly in correcting that mistake all through the bible, ending up with a need for a blood sacrifice by torture.

it has no kindness, committing and commanding genocide, and killing children for the actions of others. It also has no justice or fairness since it does indeed kill children for the actions of others.

Happily, this is all nonsense and his god doesn’t exist and his sadistic fantasies will never come true.

DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE IN THE CONVENTION:
The current definition of Genocide is set out in Article II of the Genocide
Convention:
Genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Then we have Muslims using the typical claim of “fine-tuning” as evidence for their particular god. Funny how this argument is used for so many gods, and alas, not one god can be shown to exist.

“Once again, for the intellectually challenged atheist moron, the world being meant for humans (and other organisms) means they can survive and continue as a species. That doesn’t mean it has to be perfect! Just as a computer many have flaws, so does this finite world, but that doesn’t take away from the evidence that the computer and the word were designed with purpose.”

we also have this gem “why does the same sun give vitamin d which repair dead skin cells?”

it seems that this fellow is rather unaware that dead cells can’t be repaired. They’re dead.

and this “You donkey, once again, God never intended this universe to be perfect. That’s why He provided the conditions for life, so that humans can live mortal lives. Melanin is just one of countless blessings He has given to facilitate life in this finite universe.”

so this god has to fix its mistakes? It couldnt’ get it right the first time? If the universe is a test, then why make things to fix the test?

I’ve asked them how fine tuning works when their god couldn’t figure out how to make the sun not give humans and animals cancer, radiation burns (aka sunburns), etc. They want to claim that fine-tuning is just kinda making the universe for humans, and Allah made the universe imperfect as a “test”. Now, why does an omniscient being have to test anyone at all since it knows what will happen?

and how does a perfect being manage to make something imperfect?

And finally we have a Swedenborgian variant of Christian, who follows a guy who made up his own version, just like all christans do. They are quite funny, with their attempts to claim how they dont’ say that other chistians are wrong, but then go about claiming other christians are wrong. “You’re still going round and round on the same old circular track that you’ve been stuck on ever since you got brainwashed by Calvinists growing up. Very sad.”

Alas poor ol’ Lee here can’t show he’s the TrueChristian(tm) either.

just a fun week at work where I’m leaving in a week and the boss doesn’t want me doing anything. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – when a cult has to turn to marketing “He gets us”

$100,000,000 paid for advertising jesus, called “He Gets Us.” including at the super bowl, that utterly ridiculous bit of American nonsense where idiots run around after a ball.   Not that there isn’t tens of thousands of churches everywhere in the US, plus hundreds of radio stations and TV channels. It’s not like we don’t know what they are selling, each and every contradictory sect of Christianity.

Hmm, I wonder which sect is the one that they want everyone to agree with? Of course, not all Christians are happy with this, since they all have different claims about their “truth”. Here we have a gal who is quite upset that people aren’t required to make “statements of faith”, to make sure the wrong people don’t get in. “However, there is no theological criteria or statement of faith that churches must adhere to in order to take part.”

And rather than help people, these conservative Christians, choose to do this.  A false claim about how nice this imaginary character is, whilst ignoring that their entire religion is based on this god/jesus killing anyone who doesn’t agree with it. 

No, dear Christians, your imaginary messiah doesn’t “get us”.  Not at all.   Happily, this vicious ignorant being doesn’t exist and no one needs it.  You are just a cult who is at the end of its existence, trying desperately to recruit more members to keep your leaders employed and your worthless buildings filled. This particular version is just a bunch of conservatives who want the US to be theocracy. It’s no surprise that the twits who own Hobby Lobby, are part of this nonsense. The Servant Foundation is the one taking their and plenty of others’ money.

https://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2023/01/27/jesus-campaign-he-gets-us-superbowl-kansas-right-wing-lead-foreman-vpx.cnn

Not So Polite Dinner Conversation – christian teacher spreading her lie

Here, a gal who evidently is a teacher of some kind, is all impressed with her self in spreading a lie to one of her students.

“Last night, I was surprised by the answer of my 11 year old atheist student when I asked him, “What will you do when the plane you’re in is about to crush?” This was during our discussion after reading a documentary story of a pilot and a fight attendant.

Student: I will write a letter to my family and pray to God.

Why am I surprised by his answer?
This student had been consistent in telling me that he didn’t believe in God nor in heaven and hell. Many times I was laughed at, insulted and humiliated. Nevertheless, I’m consistent at sharing to him that there is God, there is heaven and hell and about JESUS.”

aka she spreads a lie that this god will help people, when it does not. An adult lying to a child to brainwash him isn’t impressive.

“I didn’t know that through time, he has been affected by what I am sharing to him.

LESSON LEARNED: We may look foolish to the unbelievers for the moment but we don’t know God is already working on them. We just have to continue our part and God will take care of the rest. 

Atheists know that there is God but because of sins, they don’t want to accept or acknowledge God in their lives. That is the reason they keep on telling there is no God. But even so, in their death bed or in times of danger, I believe they also call on God for help. Let us not wait for this thing to happen that we only call on God as our last option. Let us live every day as if it is our last. “

Alas, for Kristel Jenny, she finds she has to lie about atheists, pretending that we really do agree with her and her cult when we don’t. Her religion depends on such lies to exist. Poor Kristel, christians don’t agree with what this god considers a sin, so you have quite a problem. Happily, atheists do not agree with you, nor do we call out to imaginary nonsense to save us. There are plenty of atheists in foxholes. It’s no wonder you don’t allow comments that will reveal your lies on your blog.

what the boss *loves* – when a trumpee website is its own best satire

Oh dear, there is a website called “The Conservateur” which is trying so very hard to lie about the vain not very bright trumpee women. One doesn’t even have to change the writing to make it utter satire (which is, yep, protected by US law). Now, I know, you’ll say, “Vel, this has to be a spoof site, but dear reader, it is not.

Let’s take a look at some of the photos from there:

Y’know because everyone who rides a horse wants to get horse sweat on their evening gown.

Poor Lara, who is claimed to have asked for horse at every birthday, but never actual rode it to know how stupid this picture looks to real horse women and men.

Then we get quotes like this “On frequent Fox News appearances and her weekly podcast, The Right View, Lara readily and articulately discusses the pressing issues confronting America. Before media hits, she “asks God to use her as a vessel.””

Hmm, while dressing exactly like this god supposedly says not to. Hmmm. I do love the writing here, nothing like pure sycophancy on the hoof.

I think it’s hilarious that either this dress will take up half a ballroom wrapping unsuspecting rivals like a spider, or poor Lara was convinced that it was “dramatic”.

Oh dears, no one is paying attention to Lara. Probably because she is just like orange moron senior, having no more taste than he does.

oh look , daisy dukes! (for those of you overseas, this is a reference to the Dukes of Hazzard (ridiculous redneck nonsense) TV show from the 80s where the females were generally in cutoff jeans shorts and midriff baring tops.

Then we can go to the pearl clutching of how Catholics are just be ever so abused. “Across the West, with secularization at an all-time high, there is increasing ostracization of religious people. Over the last few years, religious bigotry has escalated in Europe with the burning of Catholic churches and the terrifying return of rampant anti-Semitism.”

hmm, you mean anticatholicism like this lovely Jack Chick tract that “good conservative Christians” aka evangelicals still pass around?

Catholics aren’t very smart to learn who they are bedfellows with.

And then as lovely example of cultists showing that they are liars, we get this

“So my question to you is, what will it take for you to repeat Jesus’s words, “as You will?” I encourage you to willingly surrender to your Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and then take up your cross and follow Him to Heaven. 

All to Jesus I surrender all. “

when gee, this is all about high couture and “culture”. Funny how they seem to forget the whole give up *everything* and follow me. They rely on “Hey, you aren’t asking that where I can hear it, so evidently you don’t want me to.” Wonderfully convenient, eh?

It’s hard to find a single page on this unintentionally hilarious website to that one can’t find some utterly unaware ignorant conservative demonstrating just how idiotic they can be.

“Astrology is not the only trend that attempts to replace or reinvent religion. Practices such as manifestation, witchcraft, voodoo magic, and tarot card reading are becoming popular among young women and teenage girls. Teen Vogue currently has an entire section dedicated to witchcraft, and many variations of tarot cards have flooded the market. Several of my friends and sorority sisters have gone out and bought a deck, (noticeably all secular). It’s clear that people who’ve rejected religion are desperate for spirituality and are looking everywhere but the church.”

yah mean, like what the sainted Reagans believed in?



and “From the Dallas Cowboys cheerleading squad to Dolly Parton to Miss USA, there are few things more American than big hair. While there’s nothing better than a salon blow-dry, you don’t have to go to the Dry Bar to get that perfect balmy blow-out. As someone who has dealt with puffy and thick hair my whole life, I have learned to embrace and style my big hair, and I’ve picked up a few tricks along the way! Today, I have you covered on my favorite tips for achieving a little more bounce and volume. I’m giving you the rundown of my at-home hair routine, products, and hot tools to help you style that perfect all-American hair.”

and yep, article accompanied by a 80s pic of a Dallas Cowboy (american football team) cheerleader.

It just can’t get any more ridiculous.

Oh dear, conservatives thanks for being such complete twits.

Not So Polite Conversation – “Catholic of Honor” tries to refute a post of mine, hilarity to follow

This is a long slog, so fair warning. Not much here is that new when it comes to counter apologetics. I just was amusing myself in responding.

Always good to see a Catholic who has decided to respond to my posts. He didn’t bother reading anything else on my blog, including my introduction. So he thinks I’m called “club schadenfreude”. Really, dear? Tsk. I’m pretty sure I told him I was Vel, when I commented on the false claims on his blog, which of course he banned me from, rather than showing I was wrong. Alas, the self-proclaimed “Catholic of Honor” shows he isn’t so honorable, when he claims I wasn’t being honest or contributing to dialogue. He claims that showing that his claims, and other claims are false is “harassment”. But that is typical for most Christians. If he didn’t like to do ban people, as he claims, no one forced him. It’s always good to see a Catholic trying to blame others for their actions.

Anyway, let’s look at what this “honorable Catholic” has to say. You can also see it here. as a pdf housed here on my blog. He has preloaded his excuses here so he can pretend that no one can hold him accountable for his claims: “Why should you listen to me? I am not a priest, nor saint, nor theologian, nor angelic doctor. I am only a man with a desire to spread the gospel. A member of the laity wit a passion. A sinner trying to fight the good fight. A Catholic of Honor.” There is no reason to listen to him and his baseless opinions at all. But we can indeed counter them.

CoH (Christian of Honor) quotes a fellow Catholic, who makes the claim that a god named Moloch exists, and that abortion has something to do with it. Unfortunately, there is no evidence for Moloch, much the same that there is no evidence for CoH’s version of the Christian god. This fellow Christian, Kristor, who I’m sure some of you are familiar with, makes predictions that, surprise, never occur. “Moloch must be fed, by his slaves. Now that he’ll be denied the food of babies from so many “trigger” states, he’ll need to be fed in some other way. His vassals will try to figure out how to immolate some high profile victims, to sate his hunger and avert his wrath. I suspect they’ll offer up some from among their own company.”

Oh darn one more failed claim and a Christian who is sure other gods exist. How embarrassing! Then CoH says he agrees, but now it’s just a “metaphor “I admit this is somewhat dramatic and sensational—clearly not meant to be read by the Pro-Choice but rather to inspire Pro-Lifers. Still, I will not say he is wrong, provided we take “Moloch” in a somewhat metaphorical sense.” Surprise, Christians don’t agree, not even Catholics.

I wrote this to respond to poor Kristor: “No Moloch, dears, and no Christian god. I do love the lies of Christians, who have no problem with their god killing children at all. The hypocrisy is wonderful. And it’s always good to see an impotent imaginary god that can’t get rid of another imaginary god”

CoH doesn’t like this. “Lest there is any doubt, this is definably not how anyone should approach apologetics, whether Christian or atheist. Intellectual virtue consists of a character that promotes intellectual flourishing, critical thinking, and the pursuit of truth. Random and on-the-spot accusations of lying, coupled with random, impromptu, and impolite pieces of sarcasm is basically the opposite of that.”

CoH is upset that I point out how apologetics fail and says I shouldn’t show that they are wrong. He claims “intellectual virtue”, something he’s made up so he can whine about how dare anyone shows that his fellow Chrsitians lie, and says that bluntly, supported by evidence. Yep, one can point lies on the spot and ridicule lies on the spot too. Oh dear, I was “impolite”, aka the typical Chrsitian who has yet to realize that no one has to be polite when it comes to their harmful and baseless lies. The dear ol’ “Mother Church” hasn’t come to terms that they aren’t in power anymore.
Then, we have CoH upset that I pointed out that the only humans who are happy with human sacrifice are humans. I said “Literally, the only people left who are happy with human sacrifice are Christians. We see this in their myths (a babe born in a manger and Jephtha’s daughter for starters), in unfortunately common actions where Christians think their god will heal a child and let the child die, and now in their need to sacrifice women.”

He wrote “I wonder if she is using the term literally metaphorically. I honestly cannot tell, but if she is not, I greatly doubt that. At any rate, I do not see how she can excludes Muslim and Jews by her criteria—not to mention anyone who actually worships such demons.”

That he can’t tell simply is that he doesn’t want to admit that I am quite certainly using the term “literally” literally. Then he claims that somehow Jews and Muslims are happy with human sacrifice. They do indeed, if they accept that story about Jephtha’s daughter. I do like how CoH claims that Jews and Muslims worship demons, a lovely baseless and typically bigoted claim by a Christian. That’s quite a lovely “whataboutism” that ricocheted on CoH.

Well, let’s look at the next bit from CoH. “But I might as well respond to this actual argument. Remember, God gave life in the first place, but He never intended it to be permanent on Earth. It is our calling to be with Him in heaven. “

Hmmm, the bible never says this. We have this god wanting the humans it chose to be on the city of heaven on earth; only 144,000 virgin Jews go to heaven.

“It is easily in God’s rights to take His children when He wills, while it is not within the rights of men who do not have authority over life and death. When you look at it that way, this reasoning could be said to be quite logical, even if it is hard for us to see in this life. Besides, if we are just talking about children here, chances are many of them will go to heaven when otherwise, for all we know, perhaps they would not.”

This is the typical morality of Christians, might equals right. We see that CoH has no problem with human sacrifice when it comes to the story of Jephtha’s daughter. Then we have the baseless claim from a Christian and Catholic, making the claim that the children this god murders “go to heaven”. If this is an excuse, abortion would be a sacrament to Catholics, evidently guaranteeing that they automatically go to heaven. This is the excuse used by various people who have killed their children, murdered to “save” them from sin. This is from “Child murder by mothers: patterns and prevention” SUSAN HATTERS FRIEDMAN1 and PHILLIP J RESNICK1
“

“Resnick’s review of the world psychiatric literature on maternal filicide (11) found filicidal mothers to have frequent depression, psychosis, prior mental health treatment, and suicidal thoughts. Maternal filicide perpetrators have five major motives: a) in an altruistic filicide, a mother kills her child out of love; she believes death to be in the child’s best interest (for example, a suicidal mother may not wish to leave her motherless child to face an intolerable world; or a psychotic mother may believe that she is saving her child from a fate worse than death); b) in an acutely psychotic filicide, a psychotic or delirious mother kills her child without any comprehensible motive (for example, a mother may follow command hallucinations to kill); c) when fatal maltreatment filicide occurs, death is usually not the anticipated outcome; it results from cumulative child abuse, neglect, or Munchausen syndrome by proxy; d) in an unwanted child filicide, a mother thinks of her child as a hindrance; e) the most rare, spouse revenge filicide occurs when a mother kills her child specifically to emotionally harm that child’s father.”

We also have that “church fathers” say that unbaptized Children go to hell, not passing god, not collecting $200. “Let no one promise infants who have not been baptized a sort of middle place of happiness between damnation and Heaven, for this is what the Pelagian heresy promised them’ (The Soul and Its Origin, Patrologiae Latinae, Migne, 44:475)”

Funny how a Catholic just ignores what he wants. Then he is offended that I mentioned how the Catholic Church doesn’t treat stillborns like children. He claims I take it “out of context” but does not show how. The catholic church is indeed hypocritical if it claims that fetuses, embryos, and fertilized eggs are children and then says still borns aren’t. If fetuses, embryos, fertilized eggs are independently “alive” even if they can’t survive without the woman’s body without which they would immediately die, a stillborn fetus is just as “alive”. It is telling that CoH can only think of serial killers killing children. “As for the dead, we entrust them to the mercy of God and hope that they are saved.” Well, per Auggie above, there is no reason to trust this god at all.

Unsurprisingly, CoH tries to claim my points aren’t “entirely accurate. They are, and CoH does admit that Catholics don’t agree yet on more things. “I will say I imagine it is not done as much because few theologians think they are in Purgatory and they are probably either in Heaven or Limbo.” Aka we just make nonsense up.

Alas, per CoH’s own arguments, he and the RCC (something that poor CoH can’t evidently figure out) do need to start baptizing fertilized eggs. He doesn’t like that conclusion, and tries this excuse: “The point is that it seems quite difficult to me to baptize an embryo unless you expect a priest to have the doctor temporarily remove the baby from the uterus for a baptism, which seems very unsafe.”

Surely it would be fine with a god that demands “children” be baptized to not send them to hell. Right? Or does CoH admit that fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses aren’t children at all? Seems he is.

Science doesn’t show that fetuses are “independent organisms” at all. Again, until we do have the science to have an artificial womb, this potential human being needs another.

I do appreciate that CoH admits that Catholicism and Protestants have different, and contradictory, versions of Christianity, and not one of them can show their nonsense true. “As for us reading the same Bible, this feels like grasping at straws—either that or not really understanding the root differences between Catholicism and Protestantism. It is true that it is troubling that all Protestants follow the exact same method of learning about God but then cannot agree on anything.” He, as usual, tries the baseless claim that only his version of Chrsitianity, and indeed Catholicism, is the only right one. Alas for him, every single Christian claims that they and they alone have “teaching authority”.

CoH kindly lists all of the Christians who don’t agree with him and like him, can’t show that he is even a real Christian, unable to do what the bible has JC promising. He tries to claim that only he has the right “understanding” and dismisses anyone who disagrees with his version. How not new or impressive. “I will simply knock off Sedevacantists and Beneplenists from the list since I think the whole thing results from a misunderstanding of Canon Law (no offense to anyone reading this who espouses such views—I deal with them elsewhere).” Aka, don’t hold me to account for making a baseless claim and calling you liars.”

“I would argue that Catholicism best reflects the Early Church, but whatever is the case, simply stating that “You all disagree with each other and therefore you must all be wrong” is simply unsound logic.”

So, another baseless claim, and attempting to deny that if no chrsitain can show that they have some “right” answer, there is no reason to doubt them all. At best, CoH could argue that there is a right answer, but since he can’t do what the bible promises, he admits his version, and the versions of every other Christians, is wrong.

CoH also mentions the term “bulverism” a term made up by the liar C.S. Lewis, a famous apologist. Bulverism is defined as “The method of Bulverism is to “assume that your opponent is wrong, and explain his error.” “ Alas, CoH accuses me of this but has no evidence I have done this. What I have done is research the claims of CoH and other Christians, no presupposition, and then have presented evidence that they are wrong. From CoH’s own claims, my point ““As always, the bible and its god is no more than a Rorschach test, showing what the human wants to pretend is true, nothing more.”” Is demonstrated as true since even CoH admits that Christians make up what they want, insisting that their personal interpretation is the only right one, contradicting their fellow Christians. They make up their god and their religion in their own image, show their internal desires and hates.

Now, if we do want to see someone perform “bulverism”, Christians are great examples, since each presupposes the other Christians are wrong, and then they try to show how. CoH is quite right here “It is a rhetorical fallacy that assumes a speaker’s argument is invalid or false and then explains why the speaker came to make that mistake or to be so silly (even if the opponent’s claim is actually right) by attacking the speaker or the speaker’s motive.” And he does it repeatedly in his attacks on other versions of Christianity. Here’s an example from CoH’s typing fingers “When Luther first proposed Sola Scriptura, the idea seemed simple enough, but doctrinal controversy seemed to be sprouting all around from its very roots.” You can see the rest here.

Happily, I didn’t try psychoanalysis, I only compared the bible to a method of psychoanalysis. What I have shown is that there are many contradictions in Chrsitainty, and CoH has helped in showing how he is sure that only his version is the right one, which literally (yes, dear I mean that literally, ROFL), contradictions other Christianities.

CoH tries the excuse that I can’t point out contradictions since humans aren’t “infallible gods”. I’m not even thinking that. But gee, poor CoH claims to have a infallible god, and it fails hilariously since it can’t make itself understood, evidently. If there is some truth, an omnipotent, and omniscient, and supposedly good, infallible god must, by definition, be able to make itself clear, and not have to have its followers blame themselves for being at fault.

“we could just be much more charitable than to go around accusing people of being liars.”

No need to be charitable to people who can be demonstrated as liars. This is again the Christian begging everyone to not show that their emperor has no clothes.

So what has CoH’s post taught us?

“So what does this teach us? First of all, be mindful of intellectual vices which do not promote charity in dialogue and apologetics.”

He has nothing to support his claims and demands “charity” when none is deserved.

“Second, when you find a two-thousand-year-old system of faith and think you can refute it by an alleged simple contradiction in a few paragraphs, keep in mind that you might have to do more research before you think you have refuted this organization.”

CoH still has nothing to support his claims, and tries to lie that I haven’t done research and have shown that his “system of faith” is no different than those versions of Christianity and other religions he attacks. If he is the one TrueChristain™, he knows, from his bible how he can show this to be true. Unsurprisingly, he can’t do what it promises.

“Generally, when millions of people hold to a viewpoint, especially one as historically intellectual as Catholicism, I think it is unrealistic to suppose one can refute the idea so easily—which is why I think it is, in fact, irrational, to go around accusing us of intentional deceit.

Oh dear, an appeal to popularity logical fallacy is all he has. There is nothing historically intellectual about Catholicism, it depends on the same demonstrably baseless claims as any other version of Christianity.

“Bonum Certamen Certemus “which means “We’re sure it’s a good fight.” (translation courtesy of google.) Unfortunately, he’s wrong. And if you are a Christian who likes to claim that Catholics aren’t Chrsitians, your version isn’t any better.

Kitten update next!

at least Catholics generally know not to promises prayers for me since they know they always fail.

most likely CoH will complain that I post this. Sorry, I’ll bring this up every time some Christian tries to insist that their god has better morals than human beings.