Exactly, how do they expect to defend the religion they proclaim to follow when someone like Kodos starts mentioning very specific passages that they haven't even read?
What's systematic fucking of children?
In case you were in a coma the last few decades, the Catholic Church is kind of basically a massive international conspiracy of child molesters. The organization today exists in large part to facilitate the rape of children and to protect the rapists from the ramifications of these actions.
The Catholic Church would probably get my vote as most evil and harmful organization in the history of humanity, but considering the fact that the Republicans are most likely responsible for not only murdering every living thing on Earth, but ensuring that nothing can or eve will live on Earth again kind of takes the cake.
As awful as rape is, I think omnicide in perpetua is a bit worse.
Wow, I guess there's still a lot I don't know about the Catholic church...
Our country really isn't ruled by Catholic rules
I'm reading articles about Bill Maher right now, And I'm kinda with him cause I see he's not an atheist but just someone who doesn't believe in religion.
I just wanna have a quick rant about relgious apologists/debaters etc who try to make logical arguments for their particular theistic God, whom ever that/they may be, when infact all they are doing is making an argument for deism not theism. For example:
We have all heard religious people look to science in a facile attempt to prove their particular creator, the most common one being the Big Bang. Although many religious people reject the Big Bang theory, the ones who do not reject it see it as proof for their position because 'the universe had a beginning'. Ignoring the obvious fallacy here, they then jump to the wild conclusion that if the universe had a beginning then it must have had a beginner. How do they justify this wild claim? By arguing that the precision of the Big Bang was too precise to come about by chance. At this point it is only a matter of time before they misquote Stephan Hawking. They say: 'If the rate of expantion, one second after the Big Bang, had been smaller in one part in a hundred thousand, million, million, the universe would have recollapsed before it ever reached its present size.' They may also bring up arguments about how perfectly the electromagnetic force constant is to the gravitational constant, and if the electromagnetic force constant was stronger by 1 part in 40 million, or whatever, then the force of gravity wouldn't be strong enough to form stars and planets.
Now lets just assume for the sake of argument that both those statements are completely true. So what? Yes, the Big bang was unlikley, the forces of the unverise are seemingly perfectly balanced. I'm still waiting for the argument that will convince us all that the same guy who created a talking snake who convinced a women to eat a piece of fruit, is the same guy who created the entire universe on the back of this argument.
If you ever hear anyone making these arguments, or similar arguments, they are arguing for deism, not theism. And they know it, or atleast they should assuming their not morons, but they don't have any arguments for their particular God, hence why these same arguments are used by Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus etc to prove their creator. Ok, lets assume there was a creator. Now prove its the one you believe in. At this point, you will hear a heavy silence.
I remember watching a debate with Christian apologist/philospoher; Frank Turek and the late, great Christopher Hitchens on the subject of miracles. Turek said the following:
'Look, Christopher, if the universe exploded into being out of nothing (lets ignore the fact thats not true), then the greatest miracle has already occured.'
To which Hitchens, rightfully replied:
'A miracle is defined as a suspension of the natural order. You cannot say that what created the natural order is a suspension of the very thing it created.'
Turek, William Lane Craig, Dinesh D'Souza and numerous other debaters will always try many different avenues to get this argument across, but what they fail to realise is that even if we grant all of these arguments, they will still be no closer to providing any evidence for their particular creator. They will be left holding an empty sack.
To even insinuate that our tiny spec of dirt that revolves around a small sun, which is one of billions in our galaxy, which can support life sometimes, on some of its surface, not too mention that 99.8% of all life that has ever lived on this ball of dirt is now extinct, was created uniquly for us is just mindblowing to me. Yet the religious are the ones who are supposed to be humble and scientists are the ones who are supposed to be arrogant. Makes you proud to be human, doesn't it?
Anyway, in conclusion, always remember that if anyone does make these arguments from deism in an attempt to prove their theist God, not only have they demonstrably failed at doing that for reasons I have given, but also their argument boils down to this statement:
If things were different. Then things would be different.
I always like the analogy of a puddle marveling at how the hole it is in was clearly designed for it because look how well it fits!
I'd say the last few decades while you were in your coma.