Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 07:57 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 07:46 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 07:42 PM)pablo Wrote:  Naturally, if it gets larger, yes, that's going to happen. They're far from 'owning me' now, and, even with the power they had in the Middle Ages, they were far from 'owning' anyone back then either, in fact they're influence was the thing that kept crazy kings in check. Don't believe me? Look at what the Protestant kings did as soon as they got rid of the Church.

You pointing out other religion's errors does not help your argument. I don't believe in them either.
Do you understand what an atheist is? Do you know where you are?

Quote:Actually, I don't think you understand. I would want the Church (Pre-Vatican 2) to have plenty of money and power in order to further the agenda of spreading and maintaining the faith. I don't see it as a problem.

Of course you don't see the problem, you're part of it. Spreading and maitaining the agenda of amassing more power and money. Faith and god are a front.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like pablo's post
26-02-2015, 08:01 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 04:10 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ... how about you give me any sort of proof that 'natural human rights' exist within a secular context?

Secular context is the ONLY context within which human rights exist. The rights that matter, the rights anyone actually has, are conferred and enforced by man himself, usually by the instrument of government. Anyone can carry on about how certain rights are "god-given" (even T. Jefferson and company made that error in their letter to the king) - but the rights you have are the rights enforced; all the rest is whining.

And no god ever enforced anyone's rights. I don't even think any god was ever said to have granted specific human rights, nothing like the secular U.S. Bill of Rights, which does. The O.T. god was said to have given certain tribes special favor and permit them assorted privileges, but nothing on the order of human rights was even a concept 2000 years ago. The very word "rights" doesn't appear anywhere in the bible. This is as close as it gets - which is not even in the right neighborhood insofar as what rights really mean.

You might claim freedom of worship as a god-bestowed right. But your exercise of that right is at the pleasure of the government that enforces it for you. And ONLY a secular government will enforce a right to worship as you please.

God-given rights aren't worth the paper they were never written on.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Airportkid's post
26-02-2015, 08:06 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 07:57 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 07:46 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  You pointing out other religion's errors does not help your argument. I don't believe in them either.
Do you understand what an atheist is? Do you know where you are?

Quote:Actually, I don't think you understand. I would want the Church (Pre-Vatican 2) to have plenty of money and power in order to further the agenda of spreading and maintaining the faith. I don't see it as a problem.

Of course you don't see the problem, you're part of it. Spreading and maitaining the agenda of amassing more power and money. Faith and god are a front.

Since Ricky Dawkins has become an atheist icon, his net-worth is now 135 million dollars, despite not having written an actual scientific paper in over ten years. Who's the front, again?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:09 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:01 PM)Airportkid Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 04:10 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  ... how about you give me any sort of proof that 'natural human rights' exist within a secular context?

Secular context is the ONLY context within which human rights exist. The rights that matter, the rights anyone actually has, are conferred and enforced by man himself, usually by the instrument of government. Anyone can carry on about how certain rights are "god-given" (even T. Jefferson and company made that error in their letter to the king) - but the rights you have are the rights enforced; all the rest is whining.

And no god ever enforced anyone's rights. I don't even think any god was ever said to have granted specific human rights, nothing like the secular U.S. Bill of Rights, which does. The O.T. god was said to have given certain tribes special favor and permit them assorted privileges, but nothing on the order of human rights was even a concept 2000 years ago. The very word "rights" doesn't appear anywhere in the bible. This is as close as it gets - which is not even in the right neighborhood insofar as what rights really mean.

You might claim freedom of worship as a god-bestowed right. But your exercise of that right is at the pleasure of the government that enforces it for you. And ONLY a secular government will enforce a right to worship as you please.

God-given rights aren't worth the paper they were never written on.

Quote:Secular context is the ONLY context within which human rights exist. The rights that matter, the rights anyone actually has, are conferred and enforced by man himself, usually by the instrument of government. Anyone can carry on about how certain rights are "god-given" (even T. Jefferson and company made that error in their letter to the king) - but the rights you have are the rights enforced; all the rest is whining.

You don't seem to get it. I don't believe that secular human rights exist. Prove that these 'natural rights' objectively exist, and are what the UN says they are.

Quote:And no god ever enforced anyone's rights. I don't even think any god was ever said to have granted specific human rights, nothing like the secular U.S. Bill of Rights, which does. The O.T. god was said to have given certain tribes special favor and permit them assorted privileges, but nothing on the order of human rights was even a concept 2000 years ago.

Yeah, I know, that's why the entire concept is complete bullshit.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:13 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 07:57 PM)pablo Wrote:  Of course you don't see the problem, you're part of it. Spreading and maitaining the agenda of amassing more power and money. Faith and god are a front.

Since Ricky Dawkins has become an atheist icon, his net-worth is now 135 million dollars, despite not having written an actual scientific paper in over ten years. Who's the front, again?

I don't own a Dawkins book.
Dawkins has never promised me anything.
Dawkins has never threatened me with enternal torture.
Dawkins, as far as I know, pays taxes.

Your church is a front for acquiring as much wealth and power as possible under the guise of religion, and you are their patsy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like pablo's post
26-02-2015, 08:18 PM (This post was last modified: 26-02-2015 08:22 PM by PetrovPolak.)
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:13 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 08:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Since Ricky Dawkins has become an atheist icon, his net-worth is now 135 million dollars, despite not having written an actual scientific paper in over ten years. Who's the front, again?

I don't own a Dawkins book.
Dawkins has never promised me anything.
Dawkins has never threatened me with enternal torture.
Dawkins, as far as I know, pays taxes.

Your church is a front for acquiring as much wealth and power as possible under the guise of religion, and you are their patsy.

No, it really isn't. Though, I don't know why I'm arguing with you about it anyway. After all, you've provided no proof that it's just a mass conspiracy created for the sole purpose of gaining wealth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:25 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:18 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 08:13 PM)pablo Wrote:  I don't own a Dawkins book.
Dawkins has never promised me anything.
Dawkins has never threatened me with enternal torture.
Dawkins, as far as I know, pays taxes.

Your church is a front for acquiring as much wealth and power as possible under the guise of religion, and you are their patsy.

No, it really isn't. Though, I don't know why I'm arguing with you about it anyway. After all, you've provided no proof that it's just a mass conspiracy created for the sole purpose of gaining wealth.

You have provided no proof that it's sole concern is what you say it is.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:26 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 05:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  No, actually, 'you' were the one that claimed it was disproven, therefore 'you' have to disprove it.

I'm claiming nothing of the sort. I said the statement is meaningless. Devoid of meaning. I don't have to go around proving meaningless things are meaningless, except apparently to Catholics fools.

(26-02-2015 05:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  1) I'm sure that's not true.
2) Even if it is true, you're using an appeal to majority fallacy.

It is not. No. If it is true, find me ONE (not a majority) that says the concept has meaning. Not too good at critical thinking I see. No wonder you're a Catholic.

(26-02-2015 05:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Yeah, no shit. Once again, what's your point?

The POINT, genius, is that it was a validly called council.

(26-02-2015 05:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  It was passed in an illegal way, and it contradicts previous Church teaching. Even if it's not dogmatic, those two things are still a huge problem. Did you even watch even part of the video?

"Pass what *illegally* ? No I didn't watch you video. Nothing contradicts previous teaching. EVERY teaching they ever cooked up "contradicts" something before it.

(26-02-2015 05:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  Which is why we have legitimate reasons to reject it instead of just saying "We don't like it."

Which you have utterly FAILED to present of justify. "Legitimate reasons" were had by EVERY heretic. You ARE a heretic.

BTW, I fucking know a LOT more about the church than you ever will. Tongue

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
26-02-2015, 08:28 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:25 PM)pablo Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 08:18 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  No, it really isn't. Though, I don't know why I'm arguing with you about it anyway. After all, you've provided no proof that it's just a mass conspiracy created for the sole purpose of gaining wealth.

You have provided no proof that it's sole concern is what you say it is.

So, what, I have to prove that it's 'not' a conspiracy? That's not how it works.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-02-2015, 08:29 PM
RE: Catholics vs. TTA......Respectfully.....
(26-02-2015 08:06 PM)PetrovPolak Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 07:57 PM)pablo Wrote:  Of course you don't see the problem, you're part of it. Spreading and maitaining the agenda of amassing more power and money. Faith and god are a front.

Since Ricky Dawkins has become an atheist icon, his net-worth is now 135 million dollars, despite not having written an actual scientific paper in over ten years. Who's the front, again?

Being popular is no crime, fool. William Lane Craig is worth one hell of a lot more than Dawkins. Nice try at deflection. How much money did little Tommy Merton the monk with the girlfriend make for his abbey ?

Remind us. What ARE you doing here again ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: