Friday, December 11, 2009

Guest Blogger "Thomist" Has a Lot to Say: Part 1- In My Defense...

There's been a lengthy debate going on in the comments section of this post. Since I have a finite amount of blogging time that is equal to the length of Sadie's nap time each day, I had written that I wouldn't be able to continue the debate (about God's existence) any longer. Thomist picked up the slack for me. If you read the thread it becomes very clear that I am not an apologist but that Thomist might claim that title. Here are his last responses:


"Your ignorance is astounding! For giving me such a laugh I could hug you. I will respond for Cam because I am not sure she is going to comment. The core of your argument is to state the obvious and make it sound as if brilliantly deducted a complex enigma. Kudos!

There is a slight problem, however. Your logic is totally flawed and knowledge of Catholicism is practically non-existent. You might know that Catholic's have something called the "Pope" in Rome, are supposed to go to Mass and are the largest Christian denomination. Yet, when it really comes down to big questions such as: “How does Catholicism view ecumenical relations? How do they interpret the Bible? Is priestly abstinence a discipline or mandated in the Bible?” you find yourself at a loss to understand or answer these questions. To illustrate this you said: "By saying that you are privy to The Truth, you are implicitly saying that others, who don't share your beliefs, are wrong. " That is completely inaccurate of the Catholic position! Catholics hold that there is Truth and something of value in every religion. Catholicism does not rule out all the truth claims of other religions. Some they accept as being valid and true. IE those of which are valid and true beliefs. It only rejects those of which are incorrect. Therefore, in every religion, there is some element of truth to it. To portray the issue as being either black or white is to be inherently wrong in your analysis and this flaw needs to be worked on for anyone to take you seriously on this blog.

Secondly, by trying to point out your relativistic claims that no one can have any truth you fall into the trap of bourgeois relativism. Science has proven that there is such a notion as the truth. That claim can be made. Yet, when it comes to religion you have claimed a sort of relativism that is baffling. To claim that there can be truth in all other aspects of life, but not in faith is a weak claim with no foundation. Arguing that there is no God, and if God did exist then your brand of religion couldn't possibly have access to truth claims is a contradiction in rationale. It is a contradiction because you claim to believe in a quantitative truth that can be proven with rational thought, yet when allowing the possibility for God to exist you throw out all rationality and say then that all claims of truth do not need to be verified. All is true. Why? Why claim this position? Why not accept the possibility that there can be a rational God and religion if you are to accept the possibility that there is a God? The truth here is that you are not allowing this possibility, and because you are not allowing for this possibility your relativistic arguments against any concrete faith are meaningless and invalid. Being the rational person that you are you should have seen this right away. Failing to have done so makes it clear that you have failed to think out your position fully. That is your second error.

Thirdly, a final note about your conversation with Cam. To quote you again:

"Again, YOUR world view allows you to assert whatever you want, whether or not it breaks logic or nature. Mine doesn't. In addition, your world view allows you to "not know" things."

A few things are prominent here. You spell "YOUR" in all caps to further emphasis that Cam is wrong. Who are you trying to convince? That you need to point a proverbial finger while typing indicates that you are angry and accusatory. It is as if you are angry because you wanted to believe in God and when you "found out" he did not exist you were shaken. Shaken and hurt by betrayal and sadness that he did not exist. The God you longed for and still do does not exist. As a result, you even had to go so far as to drop the capitalization of the letter "G" in God. That is how much the God whom you loved has hurt you by not existing. And it is why you, whom are hurt by this lack in your life, must attack others with faith and troll around in the Internet to stop these believer's terrible lies. Don't you people know this is all a scam?! A hoax!?! None of this is real! God is not real! Marx says so! I don't want you to be hurt like I was, and so I'm going to warn you! I'm going to argue with you! I'm going to make you see he isn't real! So that you can know and be free!

But the problem is that you don't know. For all your claims of knowledge and your evident embrace of science you have not offered one single shred of proof. Anonamouth you were merely trying to replace the hole in your heart that is for God with science. You have failed to even give us an example of how Catholicism is even erroneous, let alone why God doesn't exist. It's no wonder why Cam probably won't respond. To respond to an argument you must have one to begin with.

I'll answer you're objections to my post below."
To be continued...

No comments:

Post a Comment

I love comments and I read every single comment that comes in (and I try to respond when the little ones aren't distracting me to the point that it's impossible!). Please show kindness to each other and our family in the comment box. After all, we're all real people on the other side of the screen!