+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
I do apologize for not having a new post up in some time. A few things have come up in my life outside this blog but I do want to give a few updates:
-So far, I've been getting quite a response from the anti-atheist memes I've put together. I can now say in all honesty if one were to type in "anti-atheist meme" in a search engine, you will most likely come across one I've made. I think that's quite an accomplishment on my part.
-Second, I've also been getting big viewing numbers on my "Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked" series and I am putting a new one together but it is requiring more research than I originally thought; that's why its creation is taking so long. Trust me though: it focuses on a giant historical whopper that every atheist I've met always gets wrong.
Onto the meaning behind the post title:
-Let's be honest. I'm getting sick of all these lawsuits from atheist groups like the Freedom From Religion Foundation (trust me: their day is coming) that take down and banish the religious heritage of America. Thankfully, I've come across a group that offers a much needed antidote.
It's called the Freedom From Atheism Foundation:
http://www.ffafintl.org
They are just starting to get off the ground floor so do help them out in anyway you can.
-Second, it is often said that bad assumptions leads to bad reasoning which leads to bad theology. Needless to say, once it reaches the bad theology level, horrible and often irreversible damage occurs.
With all the modernist mindsets of people in the Catholic Church, it's no wonder so few Catholics know the proper outlook the Church has concerning not just theology, but also morality, ethics and the proper place of religion and the state.
That outlook is a type of philosophy called Scholasticism, in particular Scholastic Thomism, so named because it came from the writings of St Thomas Aquinas. Again, with luck, I've come across a group that strives to bring this thought process back:
http://www.societyofscholastics.org/welcome_005.htm
That's all for now. Check back in a few days.
“the post-Christian atheist knows God exists, but he desires He should not.”- Ven Arch Fulton Sheen
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Atheist Thought Experiments Debunked #3
+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
"Christians can sin all they want because all they have to do is admit their sins and they can go back to sinning. What hypocrites!"
This statement might make a good sound bite but makes no sense in light of what Christianity teaches. I've found atheists, despite their claims of knowing Christianity better than Christians, don't seem to know some sins carry more weight than others.
That's right: though all sin is an affront to God, not all sins are equal.
Where in the Bible does it say this?
"All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death."- 1 John 5:17
So what can be inferred from this? We know all sin offends God, but by the way the verse is phrased, we know there is sin that will lead to death, but that implies there must be sin that doesn't lead to death.
If that sounds confusing, consider this: jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but which is the more serious of the two?
Now, one has to understand 100% what I just said in order to understand this next part:
The mistake atheists make (besides denying sin exists in the first place) is they see people sinning, they see them confess their sin, and then foolishly believe that's that.
Not quite.
Imagine this scenario: suppose for a moment I threw a brick at your window and you saw me throw the brick, or failing that you have security footage of me throwing the brick. You then confront me about it. Now, I can choose whether or not to confess, and clearly admitting to it is better then trying to deny it. So I admit to throwing the brick.
What's missing in this story? What's the critical point 99.999% of atheists miss?
Me confessing to the crime doesn't change the fact the window is still broken. This is where a concept called restitution comes in.
So, think of confession like this: me breaking the window is the sin, me admitting to breaking the window is the confession, the owner forgiving me is the absolution, and me paying to replace it is the restitution.
It is the omission of the last one that makes the atheism claim pure nonsense.
Now you may ask what brought this particular mental experiment on. I was arguing with an atheist (yeah, yeah, I know…when will I ever learn that atheists don't understand much of anything?) who brought up the film Don Jon.
For those of you not familiar with the movie, it involves a man addicted to adult entertainment who confesses his sin every week but goes right back to doing it. The atheist then thought this was typical of all religious people. I of course pointed out several things wrong with his thinking:
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
"Christians can sin all they want because all they have to do is admit their sins and they can go back to sinning. What hypocrites!"
This statement might make a good sound bite but makes no sense in light of what Christianity teaches. I've found atheists, despite their claims of knowing Christianity better than Christians, don't seem to know some sins carry more weight than others.
That's right: though all sin is an affront to God, not all sins are equal.
Where in the Bible does it say this?
"All iniquity is sin. And there is a sin unto death."- 1 John 5:17
So what can be inferred from this? We know all sin offends God, but by the way the verse is phrased, we know there is sin that will lead to death, but that implies there must be sin that doesn't lead to death.
If that sounds confusing, consider this: jaywalking and murder are both crimes, but which is the more serious of the two?
Now, one has to understand 100% what I just said in order to understand this next part:
The mistake atheists make (besides denying sin exists in the first place) is they see people sinning, they see them confess their sin, and then foolishly believe that's that.
Not quite.
Imagine this scenario: suppose for a moment I threw a brick at your window and you saw me throw the brick, or failing that you have security footage of me throwing the brick. You then confront me about it. Now, I can choose whether or not to confess, and clearly admitting to it is better then trying to deny it. So I admit to throwing the brick.
What's missing in this story? What's the critical point 99.999% of atheists miss?
Me confessing to the crime doesn't change the fact the window is still broken. This is where a concept called restitution comes in.
So, think of confession like this: me breaking the window is the sin, me admitting to breaking the window is the confession, the owner forgiving me is the absolution, and me paying to replace it is the restitution.
It is the omission of the last one that makes the atheism claim pure nonsense.
Now you may ask what brought this particular mental experiment on. I was arguing with an atheist (yeah, yeah, I know…when will I ever learn that atheists don't understand much of anything?) who brought up the film Don Jon.
For those of you not familiar with the movie, it involves a man addicted to adult entertainment who confesses his sin every week but goes right back to doing it. The atheist then thought this was typical of all religious people. I of course pointed out several things wrong with his thinking:
1. Not every religion has a means to remove sin from a person's soul.
2. It's clear the main character is of a faith that does teach this.
3. The character's attitude towards it is not the attitude someone is supposed to have.
4. The movie doesn't portray him making restitution for his sins.
5. Doesn't he learn to give up that junk and learn to have a real relationship with a woman by the end?
(Spoiler: yes, he does.)
Funny, isn't it, how an atheist can leave out important information, then back themselves on the back for saying something they think is endlessly intelligent?
Clearly, the arrogance was strong in that one and yet another example of how atheists are idiots.
Saturday, August 9, 2014
Top Secret Atheist Email Exposed
+AJPM+
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
People, I don't know how this happened, but somehow I wound up with a top secret email from the Rational Response Squad detailing how atheists are supposed to confront theists.
Now, I know it must be authentic because it does use RRS letterhead and it does have the signature of the founder on it. So rather than keep it to myself, I felt it best to copy it here so others can learn of atheist's devious tricks.
Dear fans of the Rational Response Squad:
It has come to our attention that many of you want a set of guidelines in debating Christian retards (or as I call them, Christ-tards). Yes, their irrationality in light of our superior grasp of all religions can get annoying so I will grant your request by presenting to you what you keep asking for:
Use only one standard in using evidence against religion.
And that one standard is this: does it make religion look bad? If so, go with it. Don't worry about accuracy: no one will ever check to see if you're right.
Always use and go with expert opinion
However, if the expert does not agree with you, then they are clearly biased and thus we should pay them no heed.
Take religious verses---especially from the Bible--and use them as sound bites.
Who cares about things like context, or history, or idioms? We don't need these when we have to get the point across as fast as possible.
If any of your notions are proven wrong, throw a tantrum.
Yes, it might make you look bad and atheism as a whole look even worse, but that's a small price to pay to let people know you won't tolerate religious beliefs in any form.
Pay close attention to this line of reasoning.
If people disagree with your stand on religion, then they disagree with your morality, and since that can't be tolerated, then religion must be eliminated and atheists are great at eliminating undesirables. Just look at Pol Pot.
It is wrong to impose people's beliefs on others.
Ok, this isn't so much a rule but still... Religious people (Christians, mostly) don't seem to get the hint that even so much as talking about their faith is imposing their views on others. And since nothing we seem to do or say seems to get the message across, then the only alternative is to use the power of government to impose atheism on everybody.
Religion and science are ALWAYS enemies…no exceptions.
Any and all examples of Christians accomplishing something in science can be poo-pooed away by pointing out anyone could have thought of or come across the discovery.
We are at this time still trying to get around the "anyone could have, but not anyone did" counter.
Always remember people will take an atheist's word over a Christian.
After all, it's not like atheists have a reputation for being psychopathic liars.
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
People, I don't know how this happened, but somehow I wound up with a top secret email from the Rational Response Squad detailing how atheists are supposed to confront theists.
Now, I know it must be authentic because it does use RRS letterhead and it does have the signature of the founder on it. So rather than keep it to myself, I felt it best to copy it here so others can learn of atheist's devious tricks.
Dear fans of the Rational Response Squad:
It has come to our attention that many of you want a set of guidelines in debating Christian retards (or as I call them, Christ-tards). Yes, their irrationality in light of our superior grasp of all religions can get annoying so I will grant your request by presenting to you what you keep asking for:
Use only one standard in using evidence against religion.
And that one standard is this: does it make religion look bad? If so, go with it. Don't worry about accuracy: no one will ever check to see if you're right.
Always use and go with expert opinion
However, if the expert does not agree with you, then they are clearly biased and thus we should pay them no heed.
Take religious verses---especially from the Bible--and use them as sound bites.
Who cares about things like context, or history, or idioms? We don't need these when we have to get the point across as fast as possible.
If any of your notions are proven wrong, throw a tantrum.
Yes, it might make you look bad and atheism as a whole look even worse, but that's a small price to pay to let people know you won't tolerate religious beliefs in any form.
Pay close attention to this line of reasoning.
If people disagree with your stand on religion, then they disagree with your morality, and since that can't be tolerated, then religion must be eliminated and atheists are great at eliminating undesirables. Just look at Pol Pot.
It is wrong to impose people's beliefs on others.
Ok, this isn't so much a rule but still... Religious people (Christians, mostly) don't seem to get the hint that even so much as talking about their faith is imposing their views on others. And since nothing we seem to do or say seems to get the message across, then the only alternative is to use the power of government to impose atheism on everybody.
Religion and science are ALWAYS enemies…no exceptions.
Any and all examples of Christians accomplishing something in science can be poo-pooed away by pointing out anyone could have thought of or come across the discovery.
We are at this time still trying to get around the "anyone could have, but not anyone did" counter.
Always remember people will take an atheist's word over a Christian.
After all, it's not like atheists have a reputation for being psychopathic liars.
Thursday, August 7, 2014
Saturday, August 2, 2014
Atheists Thought Experiments Debunked #2
+AJPM+
"Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Whether you call it divine command theory, or Euthyphro's Dilemma, either way I hope one can see what this question is really saying:
If something is good because God says it, then it's an argument from authority fallacy; if it's independent of what God says, then we can determine right and wrong ourselves and we don't need God.
And that right there is why the question makes no sense: instead of showing why saying "God says so" is a fallacy, the question commits a false dilemma fallacy.
Furthermore, it never dawns on the one touting this that each and every person has the law of God already engraved on their hearts (2 Cor 3:7). In other words, there is no way you can deny the objective truth of an action, deny the objective reality of it, and still look honest.
The difference between objective and relative truth aside for a moment (though its day is coming) true Christians right away will notice that the second part of the question is not compatible with Christian morality…but neither is the first part.
In Christianity, we learn about God's law but we also learn about God's nature, and one cannot separate the two and understand each part by itself. In other words, God doesn't decide right and wrong on a pure whim, but rather in the order and rationality that God made in all existence.
Now, let's say for argument's sake that we don't need God to determine morality. That then begs the question of how we determine morality. I've come across six alternatives to morality that atheists use.
Let's see how none of them actually work, shall we?
"We should base morality on what brings people the most happiness."
One, how are we supposed to determine anything definite with a subjective notion like happiness?
Two, in practice, wouldn't this mean that pretty much ANYTHING can be justified as long as we say it makes us happy?
"People should allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
One, why this restriction? Why should I care about whether what I do hurts people?
Two, if all things are relative, doesn't that mean what hurts people is relative too?
Three, if humans are just animals, where do you find this notion in the animal kingdom?
"The majority can decide for themselves what's right and wrong."
One, given how fast information changes, wouldn't right and wrong change just as quickly?
Two, why would one person care what the majority thinks?
"We should let the experts decide."
One…once again, why would one person care about what the experts say?
Two, who decides who the experts will be? (this might be a dumb question, since the people who tout this notion usually make themselves the experts).
Three, what happens when the experts don't agree with atheism? (again, a silly question since atheists often ignore the experts when this happens).
"We can reason what is right and wrong."
One, since when do ideas exist in a vacuum?
Two, on what basis or for what reason should we use reason?
Three, how would we reach the conclusion only reason can be used?
Four, since when do we live our lives by just reason?
With so many holes in their laughable morality, no wonder atheists are such idiots.
"Is an action morally good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is morally good?”
THE ANGEL POSSENTI:
Whether you call it divine command theory, or Euthyphro's Dilemma, either way I hope one can see what this question is really saying:
If something is good because God says it, then it's an argument from authority fallacy; if it's independent of what God says, then we can determine right and wrong ourselves and we don't need God.
And that right there is why the question makes no sense: instead of showing why saying "God says so" is a fallacy, the question commits a false dilemma fallacy.
Furthermore, it never dawns on the one touting this that each and every person has the law of God already engraved on their hearts (2 Cor 3:7). In other words, there is no way you can deny the objective truth of an action, deny the objective reality of it, and still look honest.
The difference between objective and relative truth aside for a moment (though its day is coming) true Christians right away will notice that the second part of the question is not compatible with Christian morality…but neither is the first part.
In Christianity, we learn about God's law but we also learn about God's nature, and one cannot separate the two and understand each part by itself. In other words, God doesn't decide right and wrong on a pure whim, but rather in the order and rationality that God made in all existence.
Now, let's say for argument's sake that we don't need God to determine morality. That then begs the question of how we determine morality. I've come across six alternatives to morality that atheists use.
Let's see how none of them actually work, shall we?
"We should base morality on what brings people the most happiness."
One, how are we supposed to determine anything definite with a subjective notion like happiness?
Two, in practice, wouldn't this mean that pretty much ANYTHING can be justified as long as we say it makes us happy?
"People should allowed to do what they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else."
One, why this restriction? Why should I care about whether what I do hurts people?
Two, if all things are relative, doesn't that mean what hurts people is relative too?
Three, if humans are just animals, where do you find this notion in the animal kingdom?
"The majority can decide for themselves what's right and wrong."
One, given how fast information changes, wouldn't right and wrong change just as quickly?
Two, why would one person care what the majority thinks?
"We should let the experts decide."
One…once again, why would one person care about what the experts say?
Two, who decides who the experts will be? (this might be a dumb question, since the people who tout this notion usually make themselves the experts).
Three, what happens when the experts don't agree with atheism? (again, a silly question since atheists often ignore the experts when this happens).
"We can reason what is right and wrong."
One, since when do ideas exist in a vacuum?
Two, on what basis or for what reason should we use reason?
Three, how would we reach the conclusion only reason can be used?
Four, since when do we live our lives by just reason?
With so many holes in their laughable morality, no wonder atheists are such idiots.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)