I gotta hand it to you GKC , you are doing an awesome job.

You are very kind to say so.

It's (to the extent it follows the intent) a result of knowledge and practice.

GKC

Let me get this right:
1) The majority of the world doesn't understand this stuff
2) This is key to Catholic beliefs and teachings
3) You can't explain it adequately for me
4) It is still my fault for not understanding, even though I continue to ask for clarification and refer to specific sources and your authorities haven't taught this properly to the majority of the world
5) You are going to continue to be smarky (and bordering on insulting).

And all this about whether the leader of your religion has special powers and can communicate with a supernatural universe-creator and make profound moral statements. It's my fault for not being clear on your supernatural claims, not yours...?

Let me try it your way.


Please stop goading me and insulting me. People who believe in supernatural things call me ignorant for not already knowing their nuanced definitions of supernatural invented religious beliefs that aren't clearly demonstrated or propagated on major sources. I don't understand what Papal infallibility is, if it isn't what it says on the wikipedia page and Catholic Encyclopedia. I plead ignorance. Could someone with expertise and patience and wisdom (and less smarkiness) please explain the belief of the Catholic tradition of Abrahamic monotheism on what papal infallibility means? What special powers does this human man have or special authorities?

And again, I am only minimally interested in what special powers or authorities you have invested in a human who you think is special.

Why do you think any of this is true?

"Explain the key arguments for Catholicism to an atheist?"

Not "insult atheist for not knowing all doctrines of all world religions, because obviously religion x is true and you're an ignorant atheist for not knowing the details of religion x (along with most people in religion x)".

There are plenty of things you don't know, certainly across religious opinions, and I don't insult you at every turn. Explain and justify your beliefs.

I literally came here to ask, as an inquisitor. This can't be how you treat people who come to you with genuine questions? If a professor receives a bad or misconceived question, he corrects the mistakes politely, and does not insult the student. A good professor, that is.

I'd like to keep this conversation civil, GKC. And I think you and I can do this. Apologies if I'm getting overly emotional or smarky.

Think we can help each other out here?

I won't explain it to you. Let's see if anyone will. Or whether they recommend some sources I have already mentioned.

You continue to make assumptions based on inadequate data.

The word (and its related derivatives) is "snarky".

GKC

Doubtful. 'Ain't fittin'.

GKC

Acceptance of the theory by many scientists cannot be considered as a proof, because, as even one of the proponents of theory of evolution, Motoo Kimura, says:

Motoo Kimura, The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution

Looking back, I think that it is a curious human nature that if a certain doctrine is constantly being spoken of favorably by the majority, endorsed by top authorities in their books and taught in classes, then a belief is gradually built up in one's mind, eventually becoming the guiding principle and the basis of value judgement.

Although he says this defending his own version of evolution theory against other versions of this theory — but the same quotation can also be used regarding the whole theory of evolution.

I think that it is enough to quote Wolfgang Pauli, who was Nobel Prize winner, great theoretical physicist. Notice that he was probably an atheist. Second quotation I found online on Google Books ( Niels Bohr, David Favrholdt, Léon Rosenfeld, Complementarity Beyond Physics (1928-1962), Wolfgang Pauli, Armin Hermann, Victor Frederick Weisskopf, Wissenschaftlicher Briefwechsel mit Bohr, Einstein, Heisenberg, u.a ), and quoted it little longer than it was quoted in this article.

Harald Atmanspacher, Pauli's ideas on mind and matter in the context of contemporary science, pp. 27-28

Pauli (1954b), p. 298. Translated by the authors.

As a physicist, I should like to critically object that this model has not been supported by an affirmative estimate of probabilities so far. Such an estimate of the theoretical time scale of evolution as implied by the model should be compared with the empirical time scale. One would need to show that, according to the assumed model, the probability of de facto existing purposeful features to evolve was sufficiently high on the empirically known time scale. Such an estimate has nowhere been attempted though.

Letter by Pauli to Bohr of February 15, 1955, letter 2015 in von Meyenn (2001), p. 105.

In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of ‘natural selection’ in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely ‘scientific’ and ‘rational’, they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word ‘chance’, not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word ‘miracle’. I found for instance H.J. Muller very characteristic for this school of biologists <...>, but also our friend Max Delbrück. With him this is combined with vehement emotional affects and a permanent threat to run away which I interpret as obvious signs of overcompensated doubts.

Letter by Pauli to Elsasser of September 30, 1958. Letter 3067 in von Meyenn (2005a), p. 1271. Translated by the authors.

My elaborations concerning neo-Darwinism made [Delbrück] very angry. He talked about a ‘plot of unemployed theoretical physicists against biology’.

That is a truly awesome straw man, so awesome that it frankly makes me wonder about your reading comprehension abilities.

But i don't think your problem is reading comprehension. And I don't think it's a lack of intelligence.


You know what I think it is? Your problem is the same as 99% or more of atheists, which is why 'atheist philosophers' generally make piss poor arguments and get their asses handed to them in debates. The problem is that you aren't willing to make an effort because you think you already have it all figured out already. You don't think that refuting God or 'religion' or whatever you see yourself as doing, is something that requires great effort, it's just something you do when you're bored, or you want to rest your brain. You don't think you have to make a full effort because you think it's so easy that it can be done in few minutes in between all the 'really important' things you think you need to be doing. Because you think it is just so obvious that you're right about everything that you don't even need to make an effort to understand other people's points of view. Refuting the existence of God is just something you do in between doing the dishes and vacuuming the rug.

Sorry but if you want to make headway, you can't half ass it, it is time to start making a real effort. It's not actually true that all you have to do is wave your hands and suddenly God is refuted and then it's obvious to everyone that absolute atheism is the only possible truth.

No arguments. NONE! Atheists cannot comprehend transcendentalists because they are not neutral. Specifically an atheist is an anti theist. "a" - means negation or opposite and theist/theos means God.

In Catholicism we affirm that clarity of the mind can only come from the condition of a pure heart. Anyone who is anti God is in an impure state that entombs the heart in darkness.

As such, the heart becomes a heart of stone and such a person can see only themselves and enter into the deluded realm of worshipping the logical controversies of their limited human mind.

God cannot be comprehended until one follows the scientific method for finding Him. Repent of your sinful deeds and pray for charity. Do something beautiful and selfless for someone before its too late.

Explain the key arguments for Catholicism to an atheist?

Seems to me we were on the right track initially, is there a God?

What it appears was missing from the thread was a definition for "god." It is difficult to find evidence for something you have not yet defined.

One possible part of the definition might be "existence."

That's the main problem with all of these religion debates. People speak and debate about evidence for God or reasons for believing. They argue about the sources for belief, whether religion makes you good, or how one finds God. Yet the word 'God' is never even defined! Is it - as Dawkins asserts - the magical man in the sky? Is it the divine watch maker which Paley spoke of? Or, perhaps, it is the way Aquinas, Aristotle, Plato, Augustine, Leibniz and other classical theistic thinkers defined it: existence, the source of all being, Pure Act, the Form of the Good, etc...

Those aren't just quaint little titles. To the contrary, they have deep metaphysical meanings which, in turn, have a rational and logical underpinnings.

Thanks for this thread, interesting. Here's my take.



The best arguments for Christianity are not arguments. The best arguments for Christianity are actions.

As example, please consider this historical hypothetical...

Imagine that in all it's history, Christianity had not articulated any doctrine. Imagine that Christianity was expressed only in service to others. Imagine Christians had always focused all their time and energy on service, service, service. Nothing but service.

When people asked Christians why they serve, the best answer would be to shrug shyly, and then share a big smile and say, "Because it's fun!" And leave it at that. Leave it at that.

When people asked Christians what Christianity is, the best answer would to take them right on down to the homeless shelter, and hand them a mop.

Love is salvation. Not talk of love.

If Christianity had taken this public course, Christians would now be the most popular group of people on the planet bar none. There'd be tons of mystery, and everybody would want to know the inside secret.

Ideology, any ideology, is divisive by nature. The more ideology we do, the more divided we get. Case in point, Christianity, an ideology explicitly based on love, is divided in about 47,000 directions. Divisions within divisions within divisions, leading to conflict, not love. That's a teaching.

I'm making a strong and perhaps challenging case here. I've putting my face in your face. Guess what the most likely result of my strong ideological statement will be?

Yep, you guessed it. Somebody slamming down the reply button to tell me I'm wrong, Wrong, WRONG! I do that very thing myself all the time. All the time. I'm doing it now.

Ideology breeds resistance, not persuasion, not conversion.

On the other hand...

If we absolutely insist on ideology and arguments, the arguments have to be offered within the atheist's own method. You have to use their method to make your case. Theological arguments are a complete waste of time, counter productive.

That is quite literally nonsensical. Christianity is doctrinal through and through. Anything that hadn't articulated any doctrine couldn't be Christianity. It could be anything at all.

Also: you lump together "ideology" and "arguments." Why?

Indeed. It could be just service and love.

Typo. It couldn't be anything at all. But you've missed the point so badly that I'm not sure fixing the typo matters, does it?

Ye shall know nothing in particular, and nothing in particular shall set you free.

And now, group hug!

And beer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

I thought that went without saying.

Peanuts go without saying. Dry roasted, natch. But beer always bears saying.

Mmmmmmmmmmm ... beer.