CHRISTIANITY IS A HOAX

When most Christians talk about a “worldview”, they’re really talking about the set of assumptions that they start with when they try to make sense of the world. For many fundamentalists, they assume that the world is 6000 years old, and that the Bible is an accurate history book. They also assume that there is something called the “supernatural” and that it has the ability to influence our world in strange ways, even though the concept is piss-poorly defined. I think that the vast majority of the assumptions they hold are unjustified, and because of that they end up reaching strange conclusion, all while weaving an intricate just-so story.



Yes, they seem to think that there is only Aristotelian/Thomist metaphysics. I think it would be interesting to get into discussion of, say, some aspects of Peter van Imwagen’s book Metaphysics or the underlying metaphysical assumptions for Bell’s inequalities and how this would be formulated in A/T terminology. One thing that Ameribear was singularly unable to do was to formulate a simple chemical reaction in A/T terms.



I haven’t heard a single, rational reason yet for Catholicism Neither have I and I was educated by catholics. so I can’t say if they’re lacking or not. You can say that so far, they’re lacking. At a certain point they’ll ban you for pointing that out or abandon the discussion (when they’re not in a place where they can ban you) for pointing it out. They still haven’t provided one. Their great intellectual resource is “A/T metaphysics” which is based on thirteenth century philosophy when no one understood what Newton understood or Einstein or anything since then. What they will do is put Thomas’s concepts derived from Aristotle on anything that has been figured out about how reality works and claim it hasn’t been disproven. They ignore that it has become (no fault to Aristotle or Aquinas, neither of whom had access to the discoveries that have been made since they tried to figure things out) false, or at the very least, mostly useless. . They will call it “metaphysics”. Which means, no matter what disciplined methodologies discover about the universe, A/T “metaphysics” saw it coming and gets to claim it for its own. And it can also claim an unmoved mover is necessary. All to prop up belief in Yahweh, Jesus, Yahwehjesus, demons, angels, heaven, hell and whatever the RCC proclaims is true. It doesn’t but when they refer to an “intellectual” or “rational” leg, that is what they mean. That is, if they can even explain it themselves. Most of them can’t. All this to prop up the claim that an immaterial omnibeing exists who spent a few decades in a backwater of history, courtesy of a virgin birth and a magic star. So, back to your origninal point. I can’t say if they’re lacking or not. Do they acknowledge their burden and support it? Not so far. They spend most of their time claiming it without supporting it and the rest of their time accusing people who don’t accept it of leading with their head, not their heart. When that doesn’t work, of not understanding the sophisticated, intellectual support that exists. You will encounter the same strategies if you tackle the mormons, the scientologists, any sort of muslim or jew. They just dismiss those guys. They live by claiming there are “two sides” and accusing us of all manner of unsavory things (like Jim accused us a while back of praying for innocent humans to be massacred, and then withdrew, when called on it.) Note that he’ll spend all (or most) of his time here, pretending to miss the point about “I don’t believe you.” If you dig deep enough, he’ll produce a PRATT. When you explain that the PRATT is a PRATT, he’ll sneak in something about your character.