As usual you hit the bulls eye! “Introduction to the Devout Life” was the book God used to draw me back to Him and that He still uses to re-energize and re-direct me. The book, as you know, is among the greatest spiritual treasures our Church has to offer. Would that more of us Catholics would discover this great pearl! Thank you for sharing St. Francis de sales with us.

If I might be bold and suggest another treasure - “The Presence of God” written by Anselm Moynihan, O.P.. This 45 page book is packed with tremendous insight.

God continues to use your writing to touch countless hearts and souls and to draw then to Him. Don’t ever stop!

http://harvestingthefruitsofcontemplation.blogspot.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL0iIQr0EpI

“There is no place or thing in this world where he in not truly present.”
What would you consider to be “evidence” for your assertion?
“Consider how our Savior in his humanity gazes down from heaven on all mankind”
This seems like “wishful thinking” to me.
“just as we sometimes imagine a friend to be present”
And that “friend” is not really there, is he?

Great article, Jennifer!  Thank you for some practical suggestions which are especially helpful to people like me who need reminders to slow down in prayer.

Beautiful.  Thank you.  This blind woman needs to remember His *majesty*.  I hang out with Him a lot, but don’t always have enough reverence that I am in the presence of the King of Kings.  I might even be guilty of a little impatience when I direct His attention to some pertinent matters.

Might try also speaking/remembering the NAME of God (YHWH), which silences the tongue and so serves to bring one into the wondrous presence of the LORD:

Physically, the “Y”
poises the mouth for speech –
but the “H” immediately
opens the throat,
preventing enunciation.

Then, as the lips approach
one another (“W”),
perhaps to ask a question…
they are left open
by the final “H”.

(YHWH: Order of the Divine NAME, pg. 5)

Earl Thompson - if you are so convinced its all made up, please explain your decisions to 1. click on this explicitly Christian website, 2. read the article, and 3. write a response.  Seems like an awful waste of time for someone so enlightened.

I’m in the middle of reading Introduction to the Devout Life.  It’s a good book and I hope to learn a lot.  Jen, those athiests sure like to follow you.

4. The fourth method consists in the use of simple imagination

And the other three don’t require imagination?!?

Nancy - if your position is that God is imaginary, please respond to the question I posed to Earl Thompson above.

For a group who claims they don’t believe in God - atheists sure to spend alot of time trolling Christian websites. It is your choice to not believe as it is out choice to believe.

THE main purpose of prayer is our acceptance of our lowliness. When we ask anything from anyone,  BE IT WATER, BE IT LOAN, be it water, be it a loan, be it anything elsde, do we not realise that that we are lower at least in respect of the possession of the thing we asked for ?  If so imagine the great hiatus between the all powerful God and ourselves who have nothing before him. The next stage of prayer is “thanksgiving” and “praising” . What we are is a gift of God.  Should we not thank him for all gifts and preservation ? Lastly we have to present ourselves and seek his mercy. When Barthemus cried ” Son of David, have mercy on me” Jesus turned and did the miracle. Same way when we beg for his mercy, we will get what is good for us from him.

When oh when will we stop hearing “the four this” or “the ten that” or the “20 something”? I am soooooo weary of that device. It has become sooooo boring, and gives the impression that the writer has covered the topic in its entirely, when in fact it is simply an easy, fall-back, bullet-point presentation. This device is a shortcut taken far too often now, in lieu of real writing. I go on New Advent and at least 1/4 of the posts are “The 10 things you need to know about,” or “The 20 this” or “The four that.” Stop using this format! It is boring, and bad writing!!!

The title of this article is “4 Tips for Placing Yourself in the Presence of God”.  It’s not THE four tips, it’s just 4 tips.  It does not imply that these are the only tips.  The tips she gives are quite valid, and the article is well-written.

Imaginary friends and imaginary companions are a psychological and social phenomenon where a friendship or other interpersonal relationship takes place in the imagination rather than external physical reality. Imaginary friends are fictional characters created for improvisational role-playing. They often have elaborate personalities and behaviors. They may seem real to their creators, though they are ultimately unreal, as shown by studies.
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imaginary_friend
.
Christian Psychologists teach us that an unsaved person’s mind is very susceptible to imagination. It is only when an unsaved person gets saved that their imagination is replaced with reality. And that reality is the True Christian® reality - that we are living in a world where invisible demons and angels are fighting an unseen, but very real war over human souls. The harvesting of souls for the Devil’s consumption and the Lord’s delight, we know to be real, because no unsaved person could ever imagine such a thing.
.
It is only when their minds and bodies are transformed by the born again experience that all imagination ceases to exist. What replaces their silly world of mental fiction, transforms a previously distorted view of the world into a vivid and clear reality. That reality includes the resurrection of the dead, the communion of saints, the fellowship of angels, and the everlasting torture of eternal hellfire for all those who never heard about Jesus.

@ Jason:

Your points seem to be directed towards Fundamentalist, not Catholic, beliefs.  Catholics don’t use the terminology “saved” or “unsaved”, because we are all working on our salvation until the day we die.  I’ve never heard of these Christian psychologists to whom you refer; could you perhaps enclose a link showing that they are true psychologists?  If they are, and are still Christians, then the imaginary friend argument you say they make is a very odd one for a dedicated Christian to uphold.  Finally, Catholics do not hold that people who never had the chance to hear about Jesus are automatically damned, but that they can be saved through the Baptism of Desire.

“Seems like an awful waste of time for someone so enlightened.”
I have plenty of time to waste.  If even one person begins to doubt his belief without evidence, my time will be well spent.

“It is only when an unsaved person gets saved that their imagination is replaced with reality.”
Hilarious.
“we are living in a world where invisible demons and angels are fighting an unseen, but very real war over human souls.”
Since this “war” is not seen, heard, felt, or observed in any way, why do you thinks that it exists.
“That reality includes the resurrection of the dead, the communion of saints, the fellowship of angels, and the everlasting torture of eternal hellfire for all those who never heard about Jesus.”
Well, it seems to me that you have a rather different definition of reality from the reality of the physical world that is actually observed.  Is there any actual evidence for your reality or is your reality simply “belief without evidence”?

Thank you for these very good tips. I also find it very difficult to put myself in the holy presence of God every time I start a prayer especially if there are a lot of distractions around you. I am so glad that I have came across your post and read about it. From the time I started reading it, I knew and I felt that this is exactly what I needed. Thanks for sharing this! God bless you!

One point that occurs often in the writing of St. Francis de Sales:  It is not necessary to devote lengthy periods of time to prayer.  He suggests “a quarter of an hour”. 
Imagine yourself in an antechamber of the throneroom of a king.  You are a messenger. The king may assign you a task.  Whether He does so or not, He will have noticed that you were present.
This concept is helpful when you have difficulty praying, or when your time before the Blessed Sacrament seems dry (e.g., Why doesn’t God hear my prayers concerning ...?”
TeaPot562

What’s hilarious is a troll who actually thinks he’s going to change minds by posting comments that reveal how devoid his life is.  If an absence of God means that someone has nothing better to do than troll a Catholic website making redundant statements, what better “evidence” is there of the need for God?

Yet Earl Thompson, in order to dismiss the apparent fine tuning of observable reality, undoubtedly latches on to a string theory that postulates 11, 13, or an infinity of unseen dimensions.  And even though those dimensions have not been observed, and may never beobserved, he already knows that none of them can possibly contain God, Heaven, or angels.

Dear Earl, your Socratic method is coming off as rather threadbare.  What do you think?  Go ahead, go out on a limb.  Or should I query: go ahead out on a limb?

Innocent Bystander never heard the term “saved” used in the Catholic church.  Why do Catholics refuse to read what Paul wrote?  Paul penned 13 New Testament letters.  Half of Acts of the Apostles is about his work.
But Paul continues to go ignored.  The most unappreciated man in church history?  St. Paul.  Hands down.  Let’s dust off his letters, for the Year of Faith.  It’s time to learn more terms & doctrine from God’s word.

I have been struggling with my prayer time in the same way you mentioned, not remembering what I read, or finding my mind wandering all around the cosmos except where I want to be during prayer. I had forgotten “your old buddy, Francis, and was delighted that you looked up some great reminders of his concerning putting myself into the presence of God while trying to converse with Him.
2013 - the year of feeling the presence of God as a basis for good prayer.  I can get behind that.

Catholics are well aware of what Paul wrote, as his epistles are read at the vast majority of Sunday and weekday Masses.

A) Something unusual happened about 13.7 billion years ago.
B) Jesus died for our sins.
There is no rational relationship between A and B.

Some people believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years old because they believe that the Bible says so.  This is contrary to science.  Do you know any such people?  Do you tell them that their belief is irrational?  Why not?

Some people deny evolution because they believe that it is contrary to their religion.  Evolution is a very well-established scientific fact.  Do you know any such people?  Do you tell them that their belief is irrational?  Why not?

Some people believe in miracles.  Some people believe that god is everywhere.  Some people believe in angels and heaven and hell.  Some people believe that humans have “souls”.

We exist.  We did not make ourselves.  Therefore we have a Creator.

Earl Thompson - in three posts so far, your only argument against belief is the fact that you don’t believe. You also seem to have avoided answering several of the questions posed to you.  Again, this all seems like an awful waste of time for someone supposedly so enlightened.

That’s just the problem.  He’s not enlightened.  Which is why he has nothing better to do with his time than to play juvenile games.

Hey, folks, we should be happy that Earl is responding here. He’s trying to use reason to arrive at truth. Since faith is wholly compatible with reason, we have nothing to fear, since the humble mind open to truth stands at the doorway of faith. We need to merely pray that the gift of faith will be provided to Earl.
St. Francis de Sales’ spirituality is a good foundation for finding the truth. This saint was very learned, and no doubt knew all the arguments of the day against belief in the spiritual world. But he knew that in the end, one must be humbly opened to faith, to God’s supernatural grace, which moves men’s hearts. A good starting place for understanding this is his Salesian spirituality, discussed almost daily at the website of the Visitation Sisters, at www.VisitationSpirit.org

I can’t honestly say that I’m happy Earl is here, but I think it’s safe to say that no one here has any fear regarding his presence.

@Claire:  [“Catholics are well aware of what Paul wrote, as his epistles are read at the vast majority of Sunday and weekday Masses.”]  Indeed “some” (though certainly not all) of Paul’s letters are read at the 2nd reading.  The problem is that the homily always avoids anything written by Paul because Catholic priests themselves (including the culture of Catholic doctrine) find Paul’s teaching on justification and sanctification at odds with official Catholic teaching.

Kevin Banet - I agree with what you are saying.  My purpose wasn’t to try to run him out of here, but rather to illustrate that most of us have heard his arguments before, and have heard them stated better, so his motives for coming on here are suspect, particularly when he comments on articles like this that don’t remotely relate to atheism. Faith can be strengthened through debate but nothing about this article calls for such a debate, and when the same arguments are constantly repeated (and only partially articulated at that), it suggests to me that Earl is more interested in disrupting the dialogue rather than in leading anyone to “truth.”

Yes, Earl is a self-admitted troll who often posts off-topic comments in a poorly written manner that is not intended to promote a dialogue, but to disrupt it and annoy (his words).  I will admit that he has succeeded in the annoying part.  He has done nothing, however, to promote his cause, because his behavior makes him pathetic rather than giving any credence to the points he so inadequately and inarticulately expresses.

“We exist.  We did not make ourselves.  Therefore we have a Creator.”
I conclude that you had a mother and either a father or a sperm donor.
Define “Creator”?  Do you actually have any evidence?
“Faith can be strengthened through debate”
There is nothing to debate.  You have no evidence.
Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
“leading anyone to “truth.””
Define “truth”.

The more I read of Earl Thompson’s “Socratic” posts, the more I am convinced that I already know him.  He was probably taught by a liberal secularist professor.  Earl most likely thought this professor was very cool, since he or she probably sounded smart to freshmen and often embarassed 18 year olds in classroom “debates.”  This inspired Earl to attend the class sporadically, although skipping the assigned readings because they were too much work (readings, of course, being the built-in opportunity for any undergrad to form their own opinions). Earl sat in the back and smirked while anyone who dared to dissent in class was berated by the professor.  Earl himself most likely never spoke, but his sporadic attendance allowed him to earn a C- on the final, as he was able to parrot enough of this professor’s ideas to pass the course.  Earl interpreted this passing grade as validation from his hero prof., and he now considers himself ordained to spread his wisdom throughout the world wide web.

Earl,  God is love. 

If you are seeking love, and don’t consider it another abstract principle that has no basis in reality, and if likewise truth is something in which you have an interest, then may I ask you to do this simple proof on your own?  Just a little “if”.  Simply say - with a measure of sincerity - something like, “God, if you really exist, show yourself to me, because I don’t see any sign of your presence.  I think you are an imaginary figure.”  Better yet, especially if you are a lapsed Catholic, try doing this before a tabernacle in any Catholic church (which is where we believe He, though everywhere, is REALLY, substantially present.  Ask if He is really there in that box.  If you get no answer, you get no answer… but try to realize there are a lot of us who have gotten very clear answer to this sincerely asked question, which comes from and seeks love.  (Actually, if that doesn’t work you can try praying blessings upon your worst enemy - that’s a pretty sure path to love, to God.)  Peace of Christ!

“God is love.”
Love is a “brain state” and a belief without evidence is also a “brain state”.  And “brain states” are often simply crazy.  Love is not rational and belief in a god is not rational.  Both are simply emotional.
“there are a lot of us who have gotten very clear answer to this sincerely asked question”
That’s not evidence of anything except that it seems you have fooled yourself.  So that’s why you are wasting time and money on a religion?
“you can try praying blessings upon your worst enemy”
That’s simply crazy.  1) Prayer does not work.  2) I have no “enemies”.

Quoted today at WEIT - the closing statements of “Religulous” including:
“Religion is dangerous because it allows human beings who don’t have all the answers to think that they do.”

Also at WEIT - from CNN:
“The woman who scrambled to safety after a small plane crashed into her Florida home gave thanks to God on Saturday for allowing her to escape without a scratch and for keeping her family safe.”
Three people in the plane died - including a beloved school teacher.  Why didn’t “God” save them by getting them to a safe landing at the airport a few miles away?

On the other hand, we have Earl who does not have religion, yet thinks he has all the answers.  And has no use for love.  Now there’s someone who should be taken seriously!  (not!)

So, Earl, are you (is man) merely a walking brain?  Have you (or has he) no heart (and no soul)?  Is the heart not real?  Have you no sense that the heart, though it can be fickle, often “knows” things that are beyond the brain’s capacity to understand?  And are you thoroughly bereft of wonder, of awe; does nothing leave you speechless for its beauty - is all of reality contained in your relatively small head, and are you able to recount it all for us perfectly?

(Very glad to hear you have no enemies, by the way… no one who irks you, no one whom you find wielding injustice or oppressing the poor… or devaluing the brain.)

The Blessing of the Light of Christ overawe you, I pray.

Earlier on Earl challenged us to define “truth.” The truth is, Earl’s entire Socratic “style” is derived from a 100 level Philosophy class he took during his one and only semester of community college.  Earl was intrigued by the liberal secularist professor, because he or she often embarassed 18 year olds in classroom “debates.” This, and the professor’s general ability to impress freshmen with big words, inspired Earl to attend sporadically, although he skipped the assigned readings. Earl sat in the back and, although he rarely spoke himself, was greatly entertained when the professor berated anyone who dared to dissent.  Earl’s sporadic attendance was enough to earn him a C-, as the final exam called for students to do little more than parrot the professor’s ideology. Earl interpreted this passing grade as validation from his hero prof., and believes he is now ordained to share his wisdom throughout the world wide web.

If only he had incorporated some of those big words into his vocabulary, then maybe we wouldn’t have to hear “hilarious” and “irrational” over and over again.  It gets really tedious…

Earl Thompson wrote: 
“Love is a ‘brain state’ and a belief without evidence is also a ‘brain state.’”. 

All knowledge can be reduced to a brain state.  In fact, brain states are all we have.  Your “knowledge” that God is imaginary is a mere brain state.  If you don’t think you can ever trust your brain states, you’re a solipsist. 

Mike, I don’t know.  It is possible that he really has no sense of wonder, that he is trapped in his own head…  This is a terrible place to be.  I guess if he is just pulling all our legs it can be a waste of time to give him the benefit of the doubt; but I think we should hold out hope, and always offer love.  He could be in a sincere search for truth which he has yet to discover.  God Bless!

James Kurt - “trapped in his own head” may hit the nail right on the head.  I think Steve basically proved a couple posts back that Earl Thompson is basically a solipsist, meaning he denies (or is at least skeptical of) the existence of any external reality, beyond his own thoughts.  An interesting philosophical exercise, but not something that anyone can take seriously as a belief system.

“Is the heart not real?”
Hilarious.  Define “heart”.
“the heart ... often “knows” things that are beyond the brain’s capacity to understand?”
Hilarious.  Can you be more specific?
“And are you thoroughly bereft of wonder”
Hilarious.  I have been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years.  This “Pale Blue Dot” in an infinite cosmos is a “wonder”.  The evolution of homo sapiens over the last few million years is a “wonder”.  That there are a thousand different religious sects and every one of them knows that their dogma is the One True Religion is a “wonder”.  An iPhone is a “wonder”.  :-)
“leave you speechless for its beauty”
Hilarious.  So what?
“All knowledge can be reduced to a brain state.”
So what?  Define “truth”.  Define “reality”.
“Your “knowledge” that God is imaginary is a mere brain state.”
I have no such belief or knowledge.  I merely continue to state that you have no evidence that any god is not imaginary.
“If you don’t think you can ever trust your brain states,”
Of course I never said that.  Define “trust”.
“I guess if he is just pulling all our legs”
Love and god are emotional.  Emotions are “brain states”.  When can they be trusted and when are they unreliable?
“give him the benefit of the doubt”
Hilarious.  What “benefit” of what “doubt”?  You know virtually nothing about me.
“I think we should hold out hope”
Hilarious.  Hope for what?  That I am a reasonably normal atheist?  Have you ever met one?
“He could be in a sincere search for truth which he has yet to discover.”
Hilarious.  Define “truth”.
“meaning he denies ... the existence of any external reality”
That would be really stupid and irrational.  Is “god” an “external reality”?  What’s your evidence?

Robert Ingersoll is quoted at WEIT:
“There is no harmony between religion and science. When science was a child, religion sought to strangle it in the cradle. Now that science has attained its youth, and superstition is in its dotage, the trembling, palsied wreck says to the athlete: “Let us be friends.” It reminds me of the bargain the cock wished to make with the horse: “Let us agree not to step on each other’s feet.””

Casting Crowns:  yes, all Paul’s epistles are read at the second reading at one time or another over the course of three years.  His teachings are not at odds with Church teaching, and I have heard ample homilies on Paul’s epistles.

Well, there’s a record for the use of “hilarious” in one post.  Earl comes across as more and more intelligent with each comment that he submits.

Earl, does your speechless wonder for the marvel that is the universe not speak to you of something beyond this universe?

e.g.  When a mother knows in her heart that her child is not well, without necessarily even being in his presence.
(Or when a friend knows another’s pain without speaking a word…)

You are a human being.  Where there is life there is hope.  We are all made to love.

Earl wrote:

“Is the heart not real?”
Hilarious.  Define “heart”.

Earl, please explain what is hilarious.  Also, surrepitiously demanding definitions of terms is not response.  If you think you have an answer, say it.  If you don’t, what are you doing here?

Earl wrote:

“the heart ... often “knows” things that are beyond the brain’s capacity to understand?”
Hilarious.  Can you be more specific?

Again, please explain what is hilarious.  And I think the original poster gave at least one specific example. If you claim not to know what he’s talking about, I question whether you actually exist.

Earl wrote:

“And are you thoroughly bereft of wonder”
Hilarious.  I have been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years.  This “Pale Blue Dot” in an infinite cosmos is a “wonder”.  The evolution of homo sapiens over the last few million years is a “wonder”.  That there are a thousand different religious sects and every one of them knows that their dogma is the One True Religion is a “wonder”.  An iPhone is a “wonder”.  :-)

Again, third use of “hilarious” by Earl. Hopefully he will explain what he finds so amusing.  Also, professional physicists now almost unanimously agree that the cosmos is not “infinite.” Not sure how that affects your amateur world view. 

Earl wrote:

“leave you speechless for its beauty”
Hilarious.  So what?

Earl’s fourth use of the term “hilarious.” I really hope he lets us in on the joke. And if you don’t know the answer to your “so what?” question, I again have to question whether Earl actually exists.

Earl wrote:

“All knowledge can be reduced to a brain state.”
So what?  Define “truth”.  Define “reality”.

Nice try again at imitating the Socratic method. You apparently think you have a lot of answers but in dozens of posts here you have not offered any. Your apparent inability to define “truth” and “reality” through your own reason undermines your materialist world view.

Earl wrote:

“Your “knowledge” that God is imaginary is a mere brain state.”
I have no such belief or knowledge.  I merely continue to state that you have no evidence that any god is not imaginary.

You have asked us to prove a negative, i.e. that God is not imaginary.  Isn’t this the logical fallacy that atheists are always complaining about? “You can’t expect us to prove God doesn’t exist.” But while were talking about burdens of proof, lets think of it this way.  I am a lawyer defending a client in lawsuit.  One of my options when I walk into the courtroom is to say “Judge, you have no jurisdiction.”  In other words, I can say I am atheistic to this Judges authority to hear the case (since you can’t see, touch, weigh, or smell jurisdiction, this is entirely plausible). But if I do that, I sure as heck better have some reasons why the Judge DOES NOT have jurisdiction.  If I don’t I could be sanctioned or lose my license to practice law.  The Judge does not, upon having his jurisdiction challenged, proceed to offer arguments in support of his jurisdiction.  It is my job to refute it, if I raise the argument.  This applies to you in that you have come to an explicitly Christian website, selected a post about prayer, and announced the non-existence of God.  So let’s hear the arguments.

Earl wrote:

“If you don’t think you can ever trust your brain states,”
Of course I never said that.  Define “trust”.

You did in fact imply that until you realized the absurdity of your statement.  And no, we’re not going to play the definitions game.  I’m sure it sounded smart when your community college philosophy professor did it, but that’s not a method of argument.

Earl wrote:

“I guess if he is just pulling all our legs”
Love and god are emotional.  Emotions are “brain states”.  When can they be trusted and when are they unreliable?

Your position initially was that brain states are all inherently unreliable.  You pretend to be taking a different stance now upon realizing the solopsistic implications of that.

Earl wrote:

“give him the benefit of the doubt”
Hilarious.  What “benefit” of what “doubt”?  You know virtually nothing about me.

Fifth time you used the word hilarious.  Really hoping that I get the joke soon.  The “benefit of the doubt” he is giving you is that he was assuming you actually came in here to exchange ideas, and not simply to prevent others from doing so.

Earl wrote:

“I think we should hold out hope”
Hilarious.  Hope for what?  That I am a reasonably normal atheist?  Have you ever met one?

Again, hope that you have some motive other than disrupting this discussion about faith.  Because if that is your motive, you’d be a troll.

Earl wrote:

“He could be in a sincere search for truth which he has yet to discover.”
Hilarious.  Define “truth”.

We’re not playing that game for reasons stated above.

Earl wrote:

“meaning he denies ... the existence of any external reality”
That would be really stupid and irrational.  Is “god” an “external reality”?  What’s your evidence?

The logical extension of your “brain states” comment is the denial of external reality, so its really not that stupid and irrational to ask if that’s what you believe.  As to “evidence,” there’s the fine tuning argument. The only rebuttal I’ve ever heard to that requires one to accept an infinity of other dimensions that are unobservable. This only begs the questions of what is in them and how did they come into being.  This also ties into the first cause/unmoved mover argument. Fr. Spitzer lays this out pretty well.  There are others, such as the argument from desire (again see Fr. Spitzer). Notably, Richard Dawkins is so befuddled by biological complexity that he speculates about extraterrestrial origins for life on earth. In other words, he concedes there had to be a creator but maintains it can’t be God.  Sam Harris is so befuddled by human consciousness that he now denies it exists!

Regarding: “Posted by Claire on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 1:49 AM (EDT) To
Casting Crowns:  yes, all Paul’s epistles are read at the second reading at one time or another over the course of three years.  His teachings are not at odds with Church teaching, and I have heard ample homilies on Paul’s epistles.”

But Claire, that is not what I was lamenting.  I strongly feel our Church will be better when all 13 of St. Paul’s Epistles are read, in context, VERSE BY VERSE, taught by pastors and studied by Catholics in the pews, weekly.

I do not mean a brief 7 minute reflection.  I mean a 45 minute, in-depth teaching by pastors, with everyone following along with our own Bibles, in church.  The Old and New Testament is God’s word.  We reverence the Bible every Sunday, by standing for the Gospel, by sometimes incensing it.
But the one thing we do NOT do in church, is study it so that God’s word becomes embedded within our hearts.

That would be the VERY best way to ensure that Paul’s writings are not at odds with Catholic church teaching-to TEACH what Paul wrote, in an official church manner.  The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in Rome, can put out an “edict” instructing every Diocese in the world to TEACH THE WRITINGS OF ST. PAUL, verse by verse, exposing the truths.

Right now, that is not being done anywhere in the whole world.  No where.

Terah James:  just out of curiosity, are you and Casting Crowns the same person?

The Eucharist is the center of the Mass. Yes, there is the Liturgy of the Word and a reflection/homily based on it.  But it is not the place for a 45-minute Bible Study.  There is no need to ensure that St. Paul’s writings are at odds with Church teaching.  If anyone has doubt about that, they can study it on their own.  There are ample Catholic resources for this.

Earl wrote:

“Is the heart not real?”
Hilarious.  Define “heart”.

Earl, please explain what is hilarious.  Also, surrepitiously demanding definitions of terms is not response.  If you think you have an answer, say it.  If you don’t, what are you doing here?

Earl wrote:

“the heart ... often “knows” things that are beyond the brain’s capacity to understand?”
Hilarious.  Can you be more specific?

Again, please explain what is hilarious.  And I think the original poster gave at least one specific example. If you claim not to know what he’s talking about, I question whether you actually exist.

Earl wrote:

“And are you thoroughly bereft of wonder”
Hilarious.  I have been an amateur astronomer for over 50 years.  This “Pale Blue Dot” in an infinite cosmos is a “wonder”.  The evolution of homo sapiens over the last few million years is a “wonder”.  That there are a thousand different religious sects and every one of them knows that their dogma is the One True Religion is a “wonder”.  An iPhone is a “wonder”.  :-)

Again, third use of “hilarious” by Earl. Hopefully he will explain what he finds so amusing.  Also, professional physicists now almost unanimously agree that the cosmos is not “infinite.” Not sure how that affects your amateur world view. 

Earl wrote:

“leave you speechless for its beauty”
Hilarious.  So what?

Earl’s fourth use of the term “hilarious.” I really hope he lets us in on the joke. And if you don’t know the answer to your “so what?” question, I again have to question whether Earl actually exists.

Earl wrote:

“All knowledge can be reduced to a brain state.”
So what?  Define “truth”.  Define “reality”.

Nice try again at imitating the Socratic method. You apparently think you have a lot of answers but in dozens of posts here you have not offered any. Your apparent inability to define “truth” and “reality” through your own reason undermines your materialist world view.

Earl wrote:

“Your “knowledge” that God is imaginary is a mere brain state.”
I have no such belief or knowledge.  I merely continue to state that you have no evidence that any god is not imaginary.

You have asked us to prove a negative, i.e. that God is not imaginary.  Isn’t this the logical fallacy that atheists are always complaining about? “You can’t expect us to prove God doesn’t exist.” But while were talking about burdens of proof, lets think of it this way.  I am a lawyer defending a client in lawsuit.  One of my options when I walk into the courtroom is to say “Judge, you have no jurisdiction.”  In other words, I can say I am atheistic to this Judges authority to hear the case (since you can’t see, touch, weigh, or smell jurisdiction, this is entirely plausible). But if I do that, I sure as heck better have some reasons why the Judge DOES NOT have jurisdiction.  If I don’t I could be sanctioned or lose my license to practice law.  The Judge does not, upon having his jurisdiction challenged, proceed to offer arguments in support of his jurisdiction.  It is my job to refute it, if I raise the argument.  This applies to you in that you have come to an explicitly Christian website, selected a post about prayer, and announced the non-existence of God.  So let’s hear the arguments. “Hilarious. Define ‘arguments’” is not an argument.

Earl wrote:

“If you don’t think you can ever trust your brain states,”
Of course I never said that.  Define “trust”.

You did in fact imply that until you realized the absurdity of your statement.  And no, we’re not going to play the definitions game.  I’m sure it sounded smart when your community college philosophy professor did it, but that’s not a method of argument.

Earl wrote:

“I guess if he is just pulling all our legs”
Love and god are emotional.  Emotions are “brain states”.  When can they be trusted and when are they unreliable?

Your position initially was that brain states are all inherently unreliable.  You pretend to be taking a different stance now upon realizing the solopsistic implications of that.

Earl wrote:

“give him the benefit of the doubt”
Hilarious.  What “benefit” of what “doubt”?  You know virtually nothing about me.

Fifth time you used the word hilarious.  Really hoping that I get the joke soon.  The “benefit of the doubt” he is giving you is that he was assuming you actually came in here to exchange ideas, and not simply to prevent others from doing so.

Earl wrote:

“I think we should hold out hope”
Hilarious.  Hope for what?  That I am a reasonably normal atheist?  Have you ever met one?

Again, hope that you have some motive other than disrupting this discussion about faith.  Because if that is your motive, you’d be a troll.

Earl wrote:

“He could be in a sincere search for truth which he has yet to discover.”
Hilarious.  Define “truth”.

We’re not playing that game for reasons stated above.

Earl wrote:

“meaning he denies ... the existence of any external reality”
That would be really stupid and irrational.  Is “god” an “external reality”?  What’s your evidence?

The logical extension of your “brain states” comment is the denial of external reality, so its really not that stupid and irrational to ask if that’s what you believe.  As to “evidence,” there’s the fine tuning argument. The only rebuttal I’ve ever heard to that requires one to accept an infinity of other dimensions that are unobservable. This only begs the questions of what is in them and how did they come into being.  This also ties into the first cause/unmoved mover argument. Fr. Spitzer lays this out pretty well.  There are others, such as the argument from desire (again see Fr. Spitzer). Notably, Richard Dawkins is so befuddled by biological complexity that he speculates about extraterrestrial origins for life on earth. In other words, he concedes there had to be a creator but maintains it can’t be God.  Sam Harris is so befuddled by human consciousness that he now denies it exists!

“Earl, does your speechless wonder for the marvel that is the universe not speak to you of something beyond this universe?”
NO.  There is no evidence of anything “beyond this universe”.  That’s just a contradiction in terms.  You’re just fooling yourself.
“When a mother knows in her heart that her child is not well, without necessarily even being in his presence.”
Next try ESP, palm reading, and horoscopes.  All are well-supported by anecdotes.
“Where there is life there is hope.”
Of course.  Define “hope”.  Hope for what?  Love (what kind?), riches (how much is enough?), political power (local, state, national?), health, long life, a meaningful contribution to society?  What are you hoping for?  Why?  Why can’t an atheist hope for those same things?  Hope for everlasting life in heaven with your siblings and parents?  You have no evidence that such a hope is realistic.
“We are all made to love.”
Yes.  Evolution has produced homo sapiens with the desire to propagate the species.  And cooperation with fellow members of our society is conducive to that goal.  But 7 billion is too many humans for sustainability.  So I predict “conflict” in the future.  :-)

From WEIT quoting CNN:
“Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Arizona, was sworn in a few days ago without a Bible, and she is the first member of Congress to openly describe her religious affiliation as “none.””
But then a statement after her election victory:
“(Rep. Sinema) believes the terms non-theist, atheist or non-believer are not befitting of her life’s work or personal character.”
Who’s confused?  Who’s hoping to be re-elected?

From WEIT quoting the Guardian:  Retired Anglican vicar David Bryant:
“Faith is not the progressive unearthing of God’s nature but a recognition that he/she is fundamentally unknowable. The signpost points not to growing certainty but towards increasing non-knowing.”
followed by:
“This redirectioning of the spiritual path has fruitful offshoots. We no longer have to ask why God orders the world in such an unsatisfactory way, allowing cancer cells and war to proliferate. Nor do we have to bombard him with prayer in order to achieve our desired ends. Such dialogue is only sustainable if you posit a personal being.”
Riiight.  This is not much of a faith at all.

Steve, by now you’ve probably noticed that communication is not one of Earl’s greatest skills.

Earl, you didn’t ask me to define love, and I’m afraid the one you give would not be my own - I would not equate love with the propagation of the species.  But instead of trying to discover a beating heart in your chest (and breath in your lungs), may I ask what a scientist like yourself would make of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico?  Scientists (like yourself) have shown that the substance with which it is “painted” is one not known to man, the image hovers millimeters above the cloth, the cloth (which would ordinarily decay in a few decades) has lasted 500 years… among other phenomena.  (Actually, one of those other phenomena is that the stars on the garment Mary is wearing are supposedly in the position they would have been at the time it was unveiled - maybe that’s one you could personally check on.)

Brief history: 500 years ago Mary. the mother of Jesus, appeared to a peasant (Juan Diego) in Mexico instructing him to tell the bishop to build a chapel on the site she appeared.  The bishop asked for proof.  Juan Diego found roses on the hill (in the middle of winter) gathered them in his tilma and went over to the bishop.  When he opened the tilma the image was there.  In a few years time child sacrifice had ceased and 8 or 9 million Mexicans had converted to Christianity.  You might attribute the conversions to mass hysteria (though that’s a rather large mass, and one that has lasted a rather long time), but what about the phenomena surrounding the image?  Just curious.

Regarding:
Posted by Claire on Tuesday, Jan 8, 2013 8:31 PM (EDT): Terah James: just out of curiosity, are you and Casting Crowns the same person?  The Eucharist is the center of the Mass. Yes, there is the Liturgy of the Word and a reflection/homily based on it.  But it is not the place for a 45-minute Bible Study.  There is no need to ensure that St. Paul’s writings are at odds with Church teaching.  If anyone has doubt about that, they can study it on their own.  There are ample Catholic resources for this. *******************

Claire:
No, I’m not Casting Crowns.  He/She responded to what I asked earlier, so I did a cut and paste of that post, so people could follow what I’d asked about Paul, more easily.

My point is Paul’s writings are not taught at all.  Tell me what you know about the matters of Eternal Value that Paul wrote about to the Romans, considered by scholars to be like “The Church Constitution”.

A 7-minute homily to teach the Christian faith is not enough, even if they tried to preach Paul.  At all the Masses which I attend, doctrine is never emphasized.  Rather, they are mostly feel-good sermons.  No wonder it was mostly Catholics that re-elected the Obama-Biden ticket, and we have 4 more years of potential legislation we will live to regret. 

Having priests that can preach & teach (like Evangelical pastors with sound doctrine) would HELP our church.  The ONLY ideal Catholic resource to prove St. Paul’s writings are what Rome endorses is to just preach and teach from the Bible, directly.  Other resources are only opinion.  Even Rome considers the Bible as the inspired Word of God.

In parishes around where I live, missals don’t even have readings so people (with bad hearing) can follow along.  The parish councils believed we should just “hear” the word, assuming one has excellent hearing.

I know a woman that comes to Mass Sunday after Sunday.  When I ask her if she heard the readings/homily, she admits she can only hear about 30%.  70% is muffled.  What a lost opportunity.

The population in the pews is aging, but it should never be that they stop growing in their faith, or in knowledge of Christ.  It ought not be that we just go to Mass to do the ritual, or fulfill a “Sunday Duty”.
Even the Eucharist, Communion, is to be with knowledge of what we are doing.  We are to know, love and serve God, and with knowledge, receive Him in Holy Communion.

Terah:  I share your concerns about the feel-good homilies vs teaching about doctrine.  (We’re blessed that at our parish, we have missals with the readings.  I never have trouble hearing the readings, but I still like to read along because it helps me to focus.)

James Kurt. I think I can answer for Earl. “Hilarious. Define ‘image’”
Seriously, I think the Shroud of Turin falls into the category of what you’re describing as well. It only carbon dated back to avout 1300ad but no one can explain how it would have been created with 14th century technology. History Channel ran a documemtary on this recently.

Terah James has a good point about the lack of doctrine in homilies.  My own concern is that contraception is the very heart, the very root, of the culture of death, and in 20 years of attending Mass daily, I think I have heard it mentioned twice.  Who can blame Obama for thinking he can trample on that teaching.  And how will the culture of death be stemmed if its root is continually ignored?

“You have asked us to prove a negative, i.e. that God is not imaginary.”
Phrase it as a positive - please “prove” that some god “exists”.  Please provide “evidence” that some god actually has non-zero influence in this reality.
“he was assuming you actually came in here to exchange ideas”
No.  There is no debate.  You have no evidence.
“hope that you have some motive other than disrupting this discussion about faith.  Because if that is your motive, you’d be a troll.”
Yes, I am doing a good job of disrupting your discussion about faith.  Faith is belief without evidence - what is there to discuss?
“At all the Masses which I attend, doctrine is never emphasized.”
I do not wonder why.
“there’s the fine tuning argument.”
Rejected as circular and irrelevant.  If this universe was not properly “fine-tuned”, we would not be here to discover that it was.  What happened 13.7 billion years ago can have no relevance to any religious doctrine.  Anti-contraception?  Anti-IVF?  Adam and Eve?  How does that come from what might have been a natural phenomenon that happened 13.7 billion years ago?
“This also ties into the first cause/unmoved mover argument.”
Rejected as an irrelevant thought concept unrelated to reality.
“Richard Dawkins is so befuddled by biological complexity that he speculates about extraterrestrial origins for life on earth.”
I assume that this erroneous statement is due to your ignorance.
“he concedes there had to be a creator”
You are incorrect.  Of course life came from non-life either directly on the Earth or from somewhere else.
“Sam Harris is so befuddled by human consciousness that he now denies it exists!”
You are hilarious.
“may I ask ... would make of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico?”
From Wikipedia: “Neither the fabric (“the support”) nor the image (together, “the tilma”) has ever been analyzed using the full range of scientific resources available to museum conservationists.” ... “The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[28] The tilma, considered as a type of sarga, is by no means unique[citation needed], but its state of preservation is remarkable.”
“but what about the phenomena surrounding the image?”
Anecdotes from 500 years ago are not evidence for any gods.

James Kurt - the ONLY Catholics I ever hear speak about contraception are in the pews.  No priests talk about it in homilies. If they did, they’d lack credibility anyway.  Same thing goes, for our bishops.  They occupy their time being sure we say, “And with your spirit” instead of “And also with you.”  Ours is more of a “Lets work on Peace and Justice” efforts church now.

There was an older woman that used the Rythum System during her fertile years.  She has since died, but she was very proud of having “only” 9 children.  I nearly fell over, when she said that.  Her husband was an atheist with a bad attitude.  Life in that family was a living hell. 

Another woman is younger, but she had belonged to Opus Dei.  So while she is very nice, she’s easy to brainwash.  No one I’d consider credible.  All others that speak about the evils of contraception are Catholic men. 

Bottom line: I once had an opportunity to speak with a younger man that was planning a vasectomy.  But when I mentioned the “new and improved” method of Family Planning that Catholics talk about, I didn’t even convince myself.  He got the vasectomy, getting his wife off the pill.

Frankly, while I’m sure most of these Catholics that speak about fertility issues (while they may be sincere) just didn’t know what they were talking about - or they knew, and they were just lying.  When what they suggest turns into a pregnancy, they will say, “Oh, children are a gift from God!”  While that’s true, it doesn’t make one confident that the Church is teaching the Truth.

Who can support 9 children in this day and age?  It’s not like bishops or priests are role models for supporting even small families of a wife, and one or two children.  I don’t fault him for this, but our own pastor has Mondays as his “Golfing Day”, and it’s as sacred to him as are Sundays. 

So while I see what you mean about contraception being at the very root of the culture of death, what’s the alternative?  There is none. 

We don’t even hear about after-the-fact issues preached, such as abortion (murder) or late term abortion, downright INFANTICIDE.  I once met a young girl that had an early-term abortion years ago.  She looked at what she thought was a mass of tissue, and she told me, “IT WAS A BABY!”  The image was burnt in her mind.  She was distraught by it, years later.

But I could not really say or do anything to help her.  I wish I knew about Project Rachel then, to help her heal.  But again, I was not equipped to respond, other than to say God forgives, when we sinners repent.  Of course, she’d never have another abortion, after her first experience.

Yet, how sad.  I go to Mass, Sunday after Sunday.  I hear the homilies (7 minutes)- most are very weak & about nothing with eternal value.  If only priests were equipped to Preach and Teach, so that those of us in the pews could be armed for battle, in the Real World, being Salt and Light, Soldiers for Jesus, & catalysts for God-honoring change in society.  I apologize if my blunt remarks offend anyone- my intent is to just be honest.

Terah James:  Opus Dei is a valid society, and just because someone belongs to it doesn’t mean they’re easy to brainwash.  If you read these NCR threads, there are many women who are opposed to contraception. And they do know what they’re talking about.  There are very highly effective methods of NFP. Yes, they take trial and error if someone has irregular cycles, and yes that can result in an unplanned pregnancy.  But that’s the whole point of being open to life.  A child is a gift from God, and an unplanned pregnancy is not the end of the world, and having an unplanned pregnancy along the way doesn’t mean that NFP is worthless.  (Plenty of people have unplanned pregnancy using artificial contraception, by the way.)  A postmenopausal woman at my parish has two children, each of whom were conceived on her first try.  She never had an unplanned pregnancy, despite being highly fertile.  It can be done.  And by the way, priests have a right to have one day off per week.

For all you people who have experienced Earl for the first time on this thread, you can now see that he is a self-admitted troll and is here to disrupt rather than dialogue.  There really isn’t any point in engaging him.  For one thing, if you’re looking for an intelligent dialogue, it’s probably not going to happen with someone who uses the term “hilarious” 8 times in one post.  For another thing, he has admitted that he is not here to dialogue, but to disrupt and annoy.  So to keep feeding him is only helping his purpose.  I will admit I get some enjoyment from his posts because he is so ridiculous.  But trying to engage him is really futile.

Claire, I agree with you but I think we have to keep trying because there is a perception that atheists rule the internet and that they have all these highly intellectual arguments to support their position.  Perhaps engaging Earl won’t benefit Earl or us, but there may be an unknown number of people watching who will see the light.

Phoenix, Ariz., Aug 7, 2009 / 04:10 pm (CNA).- Researcher and physicist Dr. Aldofo Orozco told participants at the International Marian Congress on Our Lady of Guadalupe that there is no scientific explanation for the 478 years of high quality-preservation of the Tilma or for the miracles that have occurred to ensure its preservation.

Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.”

“All the cloths similar to the Tilma that have been placed in the salty and humid environment around the Basilica have lasted no more than ten years,” he explained.  One painting of the miraculous image, created in 1789, was on display in a church near the basilica where the Tilma was placed.  “This painting was made with the best techniques of its time, the copy was beautiful and made with a fabric very similar to that of the Tilma. Also, the image was protected with a glass since it was first placed there.”

However, eight years later, the copy of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was thrown away because the colors were fading and threads were breaking.  In contrast, Orozco said, “the original Tilma was exposed for approximately 116 years without any kind of protection, receiving all the infrared and ultraviolet radiation from the tens of thousands of candles near it and exposed to the humid and salty air around the temple.”

Dr. Orozco then discussed the Tilma’s fabric.  He noted that “one of the most bizarre characteristics of the cloth is that the back side is rough and coarse, but the front side is ‘as soft as the most pure silk, as noted by painters and scientists in 1666, and confirmed one century later in 1751 by the Mexican painter, Miguel Cabrera.”

Following an analysis of some of the fibers in 1946, it was concluded that the fibers came from the Agave plant, however, noted Dr. Orozco, the researchers couldn’t figure out which of the 175 Agave species the Tilma was made from.  Years later, in 1975, “the famous Mexican researcher Ernesto Sodi Pallares said that the species of the agave was Agave popotule Zacc,” Orozco explained, “but we don’t know how he reached this conclusion.”

Even your own quote notes that “its state of preservation is remarkable”, i.e. beyond explanation.  And there are contra opinions re the pigment which you do not cite, but even the one you reference says that “the color values and luminosity are exceptional”; again, another way for a scientist to say that he cannot explain how they can be such, especially after 500 years.

That’s a good point, Mike.  If nothing else, it will certainly destroy that perception (about atheists having intelligent arguments against religion).

From WEIT quoting what Robert Ingersoll wrote in 1872:
“The church wishes us to believe. Let the church, or one of its intellectual saints, perform a miracle, and we will believe. We are told that nature has a superior. Let this superior, for one single instant, control nature, and we will admit the truth of your assertions.”
Yes, 141 years ago, it was very clear that there are no miracles.

Earl wrote:  “You have asked us to prove a negative, i.e. that God is not imaginary.” Phrase it as a positive - please “prove” that some god “exists”.  Please provide “evidence” that some god actually has non-zero influence in this reality.

Earl, your original statement was “prove God is not imaginary.”  You have a history here of changing your statements/questions upon realizing they are absurd. Assuming your original statement challenged us to offer evidence FOR God’s existence, such evidence was offered and rejected by you with no explanation.  I thought atheists were all about “reason”?

Earl wrote:  “he was assuming you actually came in here to exchange ideas”
No.  There is no debate.  You have no evidence.

Again, philosophical arguments were offered and you refused to consider them.  There is no debate because you refused to participate in the one you came here to initiate.  See also:
http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God?
http://peterkreeft.com/topics/gods-existence.htm

Earl wrote: “hope that you have some motive other than disrupting this discussion about faith.  Because if that is your motive, you’d be a troll.”  Yes, I am doing a good job of disrupting your discussion about faith.  Faith is belief without evidence - what is there to discuss?

So you admit you are troll?  Why don’t you take your atheist apologetics to the “big leagues” like Reddit or Youtube? Instead you come here to pick on little old ladies who want to talk about praying the rosary?

Earl wrote: “At all the Masses which I attend, doctrine is never emphasized.”  I do not wonder why.

You hit the nail on the head.  You do not wonder about much at all, it appears.

Earl wrote: “there’s the fine tuning argument.”
Rejected as circular and irrelevant.  If this universe was not properly “fine-tuned”, we would not be here to discover that it was.  What happened 13.7 billion years ago can have no relevance to any religious doctrine.  Anti-contraception?  Anti-IVF?  Adam and Eve?  How does that come from what might have been a natural phenomenon that happened 13.7 billion years ago?

Rejected by who, Earl? You? Fine tuning is addressed by Fr. Spitzer in detail here: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Why_Believe_in_God?
It is my understanding that most atheists’ only rebuttal to this is to resort to string theory, which remains untestable. String theory supposedly negates fine tuning because they say “well, there’s an infinite number of universes so one of them would inevitably be suitable for intelligent life.” This just puts off the questions:  1. where did the multiverse come from? and 2. how do you know there is no God in any of the INFINITE universes?

Earl wrote: “This also ties into the first cause/unmoved mover argument.”
Rejected as an irrelevant thought concept unrelated to reality.

Rejected by who, Earl? You? The first cause argument is addressed by Fr. Spitzer in detail here: http://magisgodwiki.org/index.php?title=Mathematics#An_Analytical_Contradiction_in_.22Infinite_Past_Time.22

Earl wrote: “Richard Dawkins is so befuddled by biological complexity that he speculates about extraterrestrial origins for life on earth.”
I assume that this erroneous statement is due to your ignorance.

So you assume the statement is erroneous? You’re not going to bother to check? Again, where is the “reason” that atheists are supposed to possess and exercise? See:  http://truefreethinker.com/tag/panspermia

Earl wrote: “he concedes there had to be a creator” You are incorrect.  Of course life came from non-life either directly on the Earth or from somewhere else.

Except no one can explain how life came from non-life.  Not even Dawkins, which is why he’s talking about aliens.  Which only begs the question: who created the aliens.

Earl wrote:“Sam Harris is so befuddled by human consciousness that he now denies it exists!” You are hilarious.

Again, Earl, you are using the word “hilarious” as a substitute for reasoning. Here is one link discussing Sam Harris’ well known denial of free will: http://www.reasonsforgod.org/2011/06/sam-harris-and-determinism/
The logical extension of this is that, if we all think we have free will, and we really don’t, then consciousness itself is also an illusion. Are you still on board the atheist train?

Earl wrote: “may I ask ... would make of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe in Mexico?”  From Wikipedia: “Neither the fabric (“the support”) nor the image (together, “the tilma”) has ever been analyzed using the full range of scientific resources available to museum conservationists.” ... “The technique of painting on fabric with water-soluble pigments (with or without primer or ground) is well-attested. The binding medium is generally animal glue or gum arabic (see: Distemper). Such an artifact is variously discussed in the literature as a tüchlein or sarga.[28] The tilma, considered as a type of sarga, is by no means unique[citation needed], but its state of preservation is remarkable.”
“but what about the phenomena surrounding the image?” Anecdotes from 500 years ago are not evidence for any gods.

Earl, you have quoted Wikipedia which had a notoriously inaccurate and has a steep atheistic slant.  What you cut and pasted from Wiki actually says “citation needed” at one point.  Also, I believe that same Wiki pages acknowledges the fact that this artifact should have turned to dust about 450 years ago.  Why didn’t it? Also, your skepticism about “anecdotes from 500 years ago” makes it hard to maintain any coherent world view since so much of history is based on “anecdotes.” In fact, that skepticism borders on solipsism when you consider how much of history simply wouldn’t exist under your definition.

Mike, you and James rock!

I believe in miracles.  But I ask, “Are all miracles from God?”

So we’re on the same page, by “God” I mean the God of Abraham, Isaac & Jacob, the Triune God of Christianity that revealed Himself throughout recorded Old Testament and New Testament history as Father, Son (Jesus, by His stripes, we are healed) & Holy Spirit.  Are all miracles from Him?

Earl, I’m afraid you would not believe if someone were to rise from the dead…  Your heart is not open to faith and so any miracle would not convince you.  One must want to know the God who is invisible, and take steps toward Him, or one will never find Him.  Some do want to know God but are afraid to take a step toward Him, to make an act of faith… and so they find themselves in sadness.  But you, at least in your persona, have no interest in God, and so do not know Him at all.  I would say you have a blind faithlessness because your heart is completely closed to any possibility that God might exist, and walk in lockstep with atheistic beliefs.  (You would not risk a prayer.)

You defined hope before - it was, again, not the definition I would use (nothing to do with worldly success).  My hope for you is that you will somehow be blessed with faith, that in a moment of truth the light of YHWH will dawn upon you.

Peace of Christ!

Another question - if there is no Creator, or sovereign God watching over His creation, and the world regenerates and cares for itself, what else that *we* have created on this earth does that, perpetually for millenia, outside of nature?

If we neglect our houses or cars, do they regenerate or do they fall apart in ruin?  Will our dirty dishes clean themselves today?  Baby’s dirty diapers: are they self-cleaning?  Can companies run without CEO’s and management teams, overseeing them?  How about our cities?  What happens without garbage service for a few months?

What atheists ask for is a “sign” from God.  When the Pharisees asked Jesus for a sign, He called it evil, saying the only sign that would be given was the sign of “Jonah”, meaning His upcoming resurrection from the dead.  We are not to ask for any more signs.  NONE of us are to ask for signs.  God’s fingerprints are everywhere - all we need to do is to look.

While we are not to ASK for any signs, God does work miracles - and the supernatural exists.  But not all ‘miracles’ are from God (remember the feats over nature that were recorded during Exodus, by Pharoah’s men? They imitated the actions of Moses and Aaron, done by God.)

This is why it’s of utmost importance for a child of God to know His word - including all the New Testament letters.  It’s why priests need to preach & teach the fullness of the letters, knowing the word themselves.
If Catholics are not taught the fullness of the whole New Testament, in a *verse-by-verse fashion*, exposing truth to us, how can we respond to the world?

If there are priests/bishops reading this—please: bring us EXPOSITORY PREACHING?

“Dr. Orozco began his talk by confirming that the conservation of the Tilma, the cloak of St. Juan Diego on which Our Lady of Guadalupe appeared 478 years ago, “is completely beyond any scientific explanation.””
You have the opinion of a single individual.  Worthless.
“Even your own quote notes that “its state of preservation is remarkable”, i.e. beyond explanation.”
Remarkable simply means unusual.
“a scientist to say that he cannot explain”
A “god of the gaps” fallacy is based on a “failure to explain”.
“atheists having intelligent arguments against religion”
You have NO evidence of any “god” acting in this world.  That argument is quite sufficient.
“such evidence was offered and rejected by you with no explanation.”
What evidence?  The “Big Bang”?  That is simply a"god of the gaps” fallacy.  And it has nothing to do with any religion like Catholicism.  Why would it justify your attempt to impose your morality on others?  Your anecdotal miracles?  Worthless.
“philosophical arguments were offered and you refused to consider them.”
Correct.  Philosophical non-arguments are worthless.  A “first cause” 13.7 billion years ago is yet another “god of the gaps” fallacy.  It’s simply a “word game”.
“Earl wrote: “At all the Masses which I attend, doctrine is never emphasized.””
You have chosen a comment by another person.  I have never attended a Mass.
“Fine tuning is addressed by Fr. Spitzer in detail here”
His opinion is rejected as biased and irrelevant.  Fine-tuning is rejected by virtually all atheists.  From Wikipedia:  “Victor Stenger argues that “... The fine-tuning argument and other recent intelligent design arguments are modern versions of God-of-the-gaps reasoning, where a God is deemed necessary whenever science has not fully explained some phenomenon”.”
“It is my understanding that most atheists’ only rebuttal to this is to resort to string theory”
There is no need to rebut a “god of the gaps” argument.
“The first cause argument is addressed by Fr. Spitzer in detail here:”
Irrelevant.  Read the entry on “first cause argument” at Wikipedia.
“So you assume the statement is erroneous?”
No.  I assume that you made this erroneous statement because you are ignorant.
“Except no one can explain how life came from non-life.”
This, too, is a “god of the gaps” fallacy and needs no rebuttal.
“human consciousness that he now denies it exists”
“Sam Harris’ well known denial of free will”
Denial of “free will” is not at all the same as denial of “consciousness”.
“The logical extension of this is that, if we all think we have free will, and we really don’t, then consciousness itself is also an illusion.”
Citation please.  I am not interested in your opinion on this.
“I would say you have a blind faithlessness because your heart is completely closed to any possibility that God might exist”
How do you know that about me?  What is your evidence that any “god” exists?
“You would not risk a prayer.”
Hilarious.  What “risk” could there be?
“that in a moment of truth the light of YHWH will dawn upon you.”
In other words, faith must come from within, not without.  In other words, you have no evidence, you have only belief without evidence.
“if ... the world regenerates and cares for itself”
What a silly assumption!  Come back in 5 billion years when the sun is a “red giant” and the temperature on this Earth is 1000 degrees and we will talk about it.
“what else that *we* have created on this earth does that, perpetually for millenia, outside of nature?”
What a silly question!  It would seem that you are trying to make an equivalence between a “god” and “nature”.
“God’s fingerprints are everywhere”
Well, nature’s fingerprints are everywhere.  So what?
“God does work miracles - and the supernatural exists.”
You are entitled to your religious opinion.  But you have no evidence.
“recorded during Exodus”
It seems that the Exodus is pure fiction.  At any rate, such anecdotes from 2000 years ago are worthless.
“the fullness of the whole New Testament”
Richard Carrier will have a new book out soon about the case for the “mythological Jesus”.

Earl, you have repeatedly quoted Robert Ingersoll.  You know he was called “The Great Agnostic,” not “The Great Atheist,” right? Your reliance upon him in support of your atheism is highly illogical
Also, please see this critical look at Ingersoll before you make up your mind: http://www.tektonics.org/gk/ingersollr01.html

Nice article. I’d add to number four, as we read the scriptures we can try to visualize ourselves in the situation - also, there is the discipline of fasting that need not be for a week or 40 days, a simple one-day fast can help us remember who we are and who we serve. Besides, it’s good for the body to take a break from time to time.

/Brad Strong
www.evidencetoconsider.com

“anecdotal miracles?  Worthless”

No Earl, it’s your long-winded, repetitive, poorly written comments that are worthless.  But who am I to deprive you of the pleasure of entertaining yourself, when you clearly have such limited sources of entertainment?

From evidencetoconsider dot com:
“The creation of life on Earth is far to complex to happen by itself”
You have not read the latest research.  And research into this area continues.  Your “god of the gaps” non-argument is a fallacy.

No Earl, it’s your non-arguments that are the fallacy.  They are simplistic and mean-spirited, and lack credibility.  Especially considering their source.

“Especially considering their source.”
From my usual source:
“The genetic fallacy, also known as fallacy of origins, fallacy of virtue, is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. This overlooks any difference to be found in the present situation, typically transferring the positive or negative esteem from the earlier context.

The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.”

Actually Earl, the source I was talking about was you yourself.  A person who has so little meaning in his life and is so desperate for entertainment that he has to grasp at straws to find it, and does so in negative ways.  It is really sad, and certainly doesn’t cause anyone here to respect you or put any stock in your comments.

Earl, first of all, I don’t think there is any single piece of evidence that will convince a person, that’s why I have probably fifty points of evidence on my site. Secondly, my understanding is that life has never been created in the lab using conditions that are known to have existed in early earth history - if you know of such evidence, please provide a link or a name.
And why are arguments from design so quickly dismissed, Earl? Why is our sun 400x bigger than the moon, and exactly 400x further from the moon than the earth is from the sun? Creating the only perfect eclipse in the entire solar system? http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/astronomical/the-solar-eclipse-odds
Why are so many people transformed by experiences with faith and God? How do you explain people like mother Teresa, or Son of Sam, or Mickey Robinson? http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/philosophical/changed-lives-man-dies-comes-back-live-saw
How did Psalm 118:8 get to be in the exact center of the bible, in between the shortest and longest chapters? http://www.evidencetoconsider.com/scripture/the-perfect-symmetry-psalm-118
How do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe? Do you really think a multiverse is more likely than that it was created by a being who imparted life-giving order to it?

Earl, first of all, I don’t think there is any single piece of evidence that will convince a person, that’s why I have probably fifty points of evidence on my site. Secondly, my understanding is that life has never been created in the lab using conditions that are known to have existed in early earth history - if you know of such evidence, please provide a link or a name.
And why are arguments from design so quickly dismissed, Earl? Why is our sun 400x bigger than the moon, and exactly 400x further from the moon than the earth is from the sun? Creating the only perfect eclipse in the entire solar system?
Why are so many people transformed by experiences with faith and God? How do you explain people like mother Teresa, or Son of Sam, or Mickey Robinson?
How did Psalm 118:8 get to be in the exact center of the bible, in between the shortest and longest chapters?
How do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe? Do you really think a multiverse is more likely than that it was created by a being who imparted life-giving order to it?

“the source I was talking about was you yourself”
Of course.  And that’s why it’s the “genetic fallacy”.
“A person who has so little meaning in his life”
How would you know?
“is so desperate for entertainment”
The comments here are hilarious, but how would you know if I’m “desperate”?  US taxpayers and their misconceptions are sometimes sad and sometimes hilarious.  A lady last night was in the 44% tax bracket when she did extra work after her regular job.  She was very discouraged.
“It is really sad”
Your opinion is hilarious.
“doesn’t cause anyone here to respect you”
As if I cared.  :-)
“or put any stock in your comments.”
Genetic fallacy.
“I don’t think there is any single piece of evidence”
You don’t have even a single piece of evidence.
“I have probably fifty points of evidence on my site.”
Hilarious.
“my understanding is that life has never been created in the lab”
Irrelevant.  God of the gaps is a fallacy.
“And why are arguments from design so quickly dismissed, Earl?”
Because evolution gives only the “appearance” of design.  There is no actual evidence of design.
“Why is our sun 400x bigger than the moon?”
Because the moon has moved farther from the Earth over the last few billion years.  Come back in another billion years and we will talk about it.
“Why are so many people transformed by experiences with faith and God?”
Because evolution has led them to be too credulous.
“How do you explain people like mother Teresa, or Son of Sam, or Mickey Robinson?”
How do I “explain” any one of 7 billion other people?  :-)
“How did Psalm 118:8 get to be in the exact center of the bible”
Hilarious.
“How do you explain the fine-tuning of the universe?”
As I said, circular and irrelevant.  No explanation is necessary.
“Do you really think a multiverse ...”
Any such speculation is irrelevant to the god of the gaps fallacy.
“than that it was created by a being who imparted life-giving order to it?”
You have no evidence.  You have only speculation.

Oops, sorry for the double-post; I was getting spam warnings and tried to simplify the text and it accepted both posts!

Okay, Earl, I get it, this is just how you argue - everything is either hilarious, a falacy, or irrelevant. Please excuse me if I ignore your posts from here on out, it’s nothing personal, but I have to be careful how I use my time.

Earl:  how do I know that your like has no meaning and that you’re desperate for entertainment?  It’s pretty obvious just by your presence here.  You aren’t here to discuss.  You aren’t here for dialogue.  You aren’t here to pursue anything productive.  You don’t care that no one here finds your comments to be intelligent or worthwhile.  So clearly you’re posting them to entertain yourself or impress yourself.  The fact that you find your comments to be entertaining and impressive is pathetic, and is indicative of someone who is desperate for entertainment.  People who have meaning in their life use their time to pursue productive pursuits.  And most people can find better sources of entertainment than just trying to impress themselves by posting negative, harassing comments on a blog.  To find entertainment in harassment is a sign of immaturity at best, psychological disturbance at worst. 

Brad: you got it.  His communication skills are limited, so he has repeatedly pepper his comments with the word “hilarious”, among others.

Yesterday a Christian posted comments on an atheist blog.
The resulting comments were not kind.  For example:
“If you want to show a creator exists, you must do this: you need to provide conclusive physical evidence for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin.”
“I deride Christian beliefs because they are so silly. They’re preposterous, and laughable.”
“We have a perfectly polite, but terribly un-informed theist doing what they usually do which is dumping a great big bag of deepities, bad science and outright nonsense in a huge pile in what is probably a well intentioned attempt to save our souls or something.
Then we have a bunch of atheists who have seen it a hundred times before and are sick and tired of having to do people’s research for them in order to refute every one of their poorly formed arguments and bad premises.”
“If you’re referring to the fact that abiogenesis is a topic for which we don’t have all the answers, then yeah, you’re right: We don’t have all the answers. [shrug] I don’t quite see how you get from “I don’t know” to “therefore, God”, but if that’s what makes you happy, go for it. Just don’t try to force your argument-from-ignorance into school curricula, okay?”
“let’s go through your article paragraph by paragraph and we’ll see just how silly your theses are.”
“Honestly, every single one of your arguments is something most of us have probably seen a few hundred times in the past.”
“I’m going to bite the bullet, and show why 1500 word essays on an array of topics is a bad way to start an effective conversation in a comment forum.”  (Followed by 3000+ words)
“You sound like a reasonable person willing to listen so it’s sad to see your rationale laid out bare because everything you have put forth has been debunked many times before.”
And many, many more.

In the final analysis, for those who believe, no proof is necessary; for those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.  But, Earl, I am concerned about your apparent disparagement of the feminine genius, re your doubting that one can know something with one’s heart.  This does suggest to me some psychological/emotional problem…  An impairment such as this could be an impediment to knowing God.  (I hope my fears are unfounded.)

I am concerned that Earl appears to have rejected the fine tuning and first cause arguments entirely on the basis of Wikipedia, and without even looking at the arguments themselves or any of the links I provided. Just as Earl will no doubt ignore this:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Examples_of_Bias_in_Wikipedia
The atheistic bias of Wikipedia would be laughable if not for the fact that so many people imagine the site to be a scholarly authority

“rejected the fine tuning and first cause arguments entirely on the basis of Wikipedia”
That would be stupid.  Note that there are 31 references to published literature under the entry for “Cosmological argument”.

“The atheistic bias of Wikipedia”
Hilarious.  Perhaps the correct word is “naturalistic”.  Yes, reality is certainly biased towards “naturalistic” since there is no evidence of anything supernatural.

“conservapedia”
Every entry in that fantasy world is hilarious.

Under “evolution”, conservapedia says:
“In 2007, “Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture…announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.”
This is, of course, a ridiculous attempt at an argument from authority.

“In May of 2011, Creation Ministries International launched the Question evolution! campaign ...”
CMI is a ridiculous Young Earth Creationism organization.

Earl, how about getting a life and finding some outlets that are genuinely hilarious, so you don’t have to keep coming back here and embarrassing yourself with your limited vocabulary?

-“rejected the fine tuning and first cause arguments entirely on the basis of Wikipedia” That would be stupid.  Note that there are 31 references to published literature under the entry for “Cosmological argument”.-

Earl, did you look at any of the 31 references? First of all, it should be noted that citations 13-28 (more than half the references) are in the “objections/counterarguments.”  This, in and of itself, reveals the editors motives.  Why would a neutral source offer an article about a thing or idea, then devote more than half of of the “references” to criticism? Because that’s what Wikipedia is.  But it gets better.  Many of the references under “objections/counterarguments” actually support the cosmological argument as probative evidnece of God’s existence.  For the “objections/counterarguments,” Wiki cites 13. the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which contains a fairly objective description of pro and con arguments, 14. an unpublished, non-peer reviewed entry from a atheist webside (this is cited twice), 15. a citation to the problem of induction generally which cuts just as much against a purely rationalist worldview, as it calls into question the validity of all human knowledge 16. an article by William Lane Craig RESPONDING TO the criticisms, 17. the definition of diesm, which is not argument or criticism at all, 18. and 19. two sources defining pandeism, which is not argument or criticism at all, 20. an article about time travel (WTF is that doing there, you might ask? exactly my point).  References 22. & 23. are to two scholarly articles rebutting the possibility of infinite causal chains, one of which is entitled “An argument for God’s existence.”  And the “objections/counterarguments” section concludes with a paragraph about St. Thomas Aquinas!  So in short, there is really no “there” there when it comes to Wikipedia’s rebuttal of this argument. 

-“conservapedia” Every entry in that fantasy world is hilarious.-

Don’t trust conservapedia? Perhaps a valid point, but Wiki’s inherent bias is well documented elsewhere:

http://newsbusters.org/node/10615

http://frontpagemag.com/2011/david-swindle/how-the-left-conquered-wikipedia-part-1/

Earl wrote:  “Yesterday a Christian posted comments on an atheist blog. The resulting comments were not kind.”

So the fact atheist bloggers, on an atheist website, dismissed the Christian arguments - without actually engaging them - disproves God to you? That’s far more circular than the reasoning you criticize others of employing. I think they had it wrong about you earlier, when they said you passed a community college philosophy course with a C-.  I doubt you’ve ever taken a college course in anything.

Jerry Coyne in August, 2010:
“I can’t conceive how philosophical argument alone, without any input of data, is going to prove—or even strongly suggest—that God exists.”
Then he quotes Gutting:
“Of course, philosophical discussions have not resolved the question of God’s existence. Even the best theistic and atheistic arguments remain controversial.”

“This, in and of itself, reveals the editors motives.”
Or perhaps it reveals “reality”.  There is no evidence of anything supernatural.

“as it calls into question the validity of all human knowledge”
Hilarious.

“an article by William Lane Craig”
Hilarious.

“rebutting the possibility of infinite causal chains”
Hilarious.

“without actually engaging them”
Hilarious.  You have no evidence to engage.  Philosophical “word games” are meaningless.  As the commenters said - “we have heard it all a hundred times before and it’s still the same nonsense.”

Earl, it’s your comments that epitomize nonsense.  Yet another comment where the word “hilarious” appears four times.  Your writing style and communication style are incredibly backward, even more so than the content that you’re trying to convey.

Copied from Jason Rosenhouse’s blog Jan 23 “Agnosticism Is For Wimps”:
“More to the point, serious discussion is all well and good, but the fact is that we’ve already had those discussions. Readers who like that sort of thing (and I happen to be one) can certainly find careful, scholarly refutations of the major arguments made by Gutting’s paragons.  [Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and Peter van Inwagen]  Most philosophers are atheists, after all, and I would think that atheists who are not academics could reasonably infer that if these arguments were any good, more philosophers would endorse them. Life is short, and atheists don’t endlessly have to reinvent the wheel.”
Rosenhouse is commenting on an essay by Gary Gutting in The New York Times.

Now that’s relevant (not).  But I guess I should at least be happy that it doesn’t contain the term “hilarious”.  By the way, atheists also don’t have to endlessly post the same comments over and over again on Catholic boards.  But if they want to make themselves look ridiculous, it’s a good way of accomplishing that goal.

Earl, you last couple posts are almost incoherent.  You have cutted and pasted things without giving any indication of their context.  In your last post, you reference Alvin Plantinga, Richard Swinburne and Peter van Inwagen - all three theistic philosphers who have argued for the existence of God. Two of them I’d never heard of but will be reading about so thanks, Earl - you’re making the pro-theistic arguments better than some believers!

“you’re making the pro-theistic arguments better than some believers!”
Hilarious.  I’m not “making ... the arguments”.  I’m pointing out that the non-arguments by these philosophers have been refuted.

Earl, your presence here is itself a pro-theistic argument.  It gives people an example of how atheism can lead to an empty, shallow life.  (It’s not a guarantee, of course, because I know many atheists who have meaningful relationships and have better things to do with their time than trolling.  But there are people here who don’t have close relationships with atheists, and your comments and your presence are going to further cement their notion of how pathetic the life of an atheist can be.)

“Earl, your presence here is itself a pro-theistic argument.”
Hilarious.  Your condescension is an argument against any “love” that a Christian might show toward someone with a different worldview.  Of course I have already volunteered over 80 hours since Jan 14.  Roe vs. Wade at 40.  Of course you have the right to impose your morality upon others - not.

Earl, that would be valid except neither you nor the article you cut and pasted from bother to rebut the arguments. Simply announcing that they have been rebutted is not rebuttal. If logic worked that way my job as a lawyer would be a lot easier (or harder, if my adversary happened to shout out ‘rebutted’ first). A lot of times that so-called rebuttal, when actually provided, sounds a lot like your wikipedia rebuttal of the cosmological argument above -  they evaporate once they are analyzed for more than five minutes.

Earl, I will respond to the coherent portion of your comment.  You are the king of condescension, so it is, to use your favorite word, “hilarious” that you would use that term to describe me.  I have mentioned several times that there are many people in my life who have a different worldview than mine:  friends, family members, colleagues, you name it.  Unlike you, they are ethical people who have interesting things to do with their time.  I show them ample love, and vice versa.  Many people on these threads have tried to reach out to you in love, and your response has been condescension.  As far as imposing morality on others:  let’s just legalize murder of people who have been born.  If we can’t impose morality, why stop at limiting murder to the unborn?

Earl is not in my view anymore, but I want to say, Mike and Clair, I appreciate your comments and your patience with him.
We have to keep in mind that spiritual things are spiritually percieved, and there is a kind of blindness that some people have. I’m living in Sweden now, a land full of athiests and agnostics, and I really appreciate the spirit of other believers, even on a blog.

“We have to keep in mind that spiritual things are spiritually percieved [sic]”
In other words, those who believe without evidence are the ones who accept that things without evidence really exist.
“there is a kind of blindness that some people have.”
Yes, that is clear.  The willful blindness of those who believe without evidence is amazing.
“I really appreciate the spirit of other believers”
Of course.  You have been properly indoctrinated into the cult.

Earl, by what standard is your ‘belief based on evidence’ obejctively better than belief not based on evidence.  What transcendant principle do we violate when we believe without ‘evidence.’? And where is that principle derived from.

Believe it or not Earl, just because someone doesn’t agree with your cognitively limited logic does not mean that they are indoctrinated into a cult.

And yet we’re the ones who can’t tolerate any alternate world views.  So in addition to having limited forms of entertainment, Earl is also a hypocrite (not that this is a new revelation).

“Earl, by what standard is your ‘belief based on evidence’ objectively better than belief not based on evidence?”
By what standard is “reality” better than “fantasy”?  By what standard is “truth” better than “falsehood”?  By what standard do you justify your attempt to impose your morality on others?
“What transcendant principle do we violate…”
Define “transcendent principle”.  Why do you think there is any such thing?
“And where is that principle derived from?”
If there are no such “principles”, then they are simply “made up”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
“The transcendentalists desired to ground their religion and philosophy in transcendental principles: principles not based on, or falsifiable by, physical experience, but deriving from the inner spiritual or mental essence of the human.”

“And yet we’re the ones who can’t tolerate any alternate world views.”
Define “tolerate”.  Death to apostates according to Sharia?  Who has proposed making membership in Scientology or any other religion/cult illegal?
“Earl is also a hypocrite.”
Hilarious.  Who wishes to prevent insurance companies from covering various forms of contraception while actually using such forms themselves?

“Unlike you, they are ethical people”
Thank you for your “name-calling”.
“As far as imposing morality on others:  let’s just legalize murder of people who have been born.”
What a stupid thing to say!  You cavalier use of the word “murder” is ridiculous.  Murder is defined by the laws of society, so it differs over time and place.  Roe vs. Wade was 40 years ago.  Get over it.

“neither you nor the article you cut and pasted from bother to rebut the arguments.”
You said Wikipedia was biased.  Then you pointed out that it had references to both points of view.  As Claire has noted, I have wasted a lot of time having fun here.  But if you are actually interested in learning about the rebuttals (which I doubt because I do not believe you are capable of doubt), then you can go find them yourself.

“sounds a lot like your Wikipedia rebuttal”
“God of the Gaps” is a fallacy.
A “circular argument” is a fallacy.
That you do not accept that your non-arguments are based on fallacies is unsurprising.

Stupidity from William Lane Craig:
“God is the best explanation of intentional states of consciousness in the world. Philosophers are puzzled by states of intentionality. Intentionality is the property of being about something or of something. It’s signifies the object directedness of our thoughts.”

Earl, that isn’t responsive to anything said in the last couple dozen comments. Also, you have failed to explain what makes the quote stupid. Your inability / refusal to understand Dr. Craig’s point does not make the point stupid. Finally, have you even read or listened to anything br Dr.. Craig? or have you just accepted without question another neckbeard’s conclusions about Dr. Craig?

Well Mike, I’m sure you’ve figured out by now that there is no logical flow (or any type of flow) to the way Earl debates.  (If you can even call it debating;  it’s more like talking to himself.) 

Having genuine fun is not a waste of time.  A retired man playing juvenile games is a waste of time, and is pathetic.  And by the way, what you’re offering is not a rebuttal, because rebuttals by their definition do not need to be researched.  What you’re offering is a random list of quotes, links and soundbytes that have no flow and do nothing to defend your warped position.  And just to set the record straight:  I do not use contraception, and I do not want to prevent insurance companies from covering it.  I want to prevent employers from paying for something that they find morally objectionable.  If you can’t understand that distinction, then your intelligence is even more limited than I thought it was.  As far as my “cavalier” use of the word murder, that is pretty hypocritical (again, the fact that you’re a hypocrite is not exactly a new revelation) from someone whose response to the death of millions of babies is “just get over it”.  So definitions of murder change over time and should be accepted by the law of the land?  I guess then if infanticide is legalized, we should just get over it and accept that the definition of murder has changed.  Earl, with every word you type, you make yourself more ridiculous.  I am starting to really worry about the people whose tax returns you prepare.  Although I understand that it is possible to have low intelligence in one area and higher intelligence in other areas.  I hope for their sake that is the case with you.

Having genuine fun is not a waste of time.  A retired man playing juvenile games is a waste of time, and is pathetic.  And by the way, what you’re offering is not a rebuttal, because rebuttals by their definition do not need to be researched.  What you’re offering is a random list of quotes, links and soundbytes that have no flow and do nothing to defend your warped position.  And just to set the record straight:  I do not use contraception, and I do not want to prevent insurance companies from covering it.  I want to prevent employers from paying for something that they find morally objectionable.  If you can’t understand that distinction, then your intelligence is even more limited than I thought it was.

As far as my “cavalier” use of the word murder, that is pretty hypocritical (again, the fact that you’re a hypocrite is not exactly a new revelation) from someone whose response to the death of millions of babies is “just get over it”.  So definitions of murder change over time and should be accepted by the law of the land?  I guess then if infanticide is legalized, we should just get over it and accept that the definition of murder has changed.  Earl, with every word you type, you make yourself more ridiculous.  I am starting to really worry about the people whose tax returns you prepare.  Although I understand that it is possible to have low intelligence in one area and higher intelligence in other areas.  I hope for their sake that is the case with you.

I will anxiously (not!) await to see which portions of my comments you choose to respond to.  I have noticed that you are very selective in which portions you respond to, choosing the ones you think you might have a slight chance of being able to adequately stand up to.  Good luck with that!

“babies”
Apparently there is some disagreement over the definition of the word “babies”.

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—by what standard is your ‘belief based on evidence’ objectively better than belief not based on evidence?”
By what standard is “reality” better than “fantasy”?  By what standard is “truth” better than “falsehood”?  By what standard do you justify your attempt to impose your morality on others?—

This only restate’s the original question.  You have failed to answer whether there is any objective basis for preferring “rational” belief over “irrational” beliefs.  If there is no objective truth (a conclusion that many atheists reach eventually) than how is it “better” to embrace “reality.”  In the absence of some objective truth, why not just believe whatever makes you happy? 

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“What transcendant principle do we violate…”
Define “transcendent principle”.  Why do you think there is any such thing?—

That’s my point exactly.  If there is no transcendant truth, there is no objective reason to favor your “rational” beliefs -  in other words, nothing objectively wrong with believing a “fantansy,” and nothing objectively right about your materialist reductionism. You have to appeal to something outsite the reductionist paradigm to even plead your case. 

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“And where is that principle derived from?”
If there are no such “principles”, then they are simply “made up”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendentalism
“The transcendentalists desired to ground their religion and philosophy in transcendental principles: principles not based on, or falsifiable by, physical experience, but deriving from the inner spiritual or mental essence of the human.”—

Your ability to cut and paste from Athipedia has been established.  As stated above, if transcendent truth it simply “made up,” then so are any standards by which your “rational” reductionism could ever be judged as true.

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“neither you nor the article you cut and pasted from bother to rebut the arguments.”
You said Wikipedia was biased.  Then you pointed out that it had references to both points of view.—

There is no inconsistency here.  I said the content of the Wikipedia entry itself is biased.  When they offer purported references to support their biased assessment, and you actually follow-up on those references, you see a very different story.  I am talking about the words used by Wikipedia in the entry as something distinct from the references themselves, which they obvious. 

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“sounds a lot like your Wikipedia rebuttal”
“God of the Gaps” is a fallacy.
A “circular argument” is a fallacy.
That you do not accept that your non-arguments are based on fallacies is unsurprising.—

What exactly is this responsive to? What “God of the Gaps” / “circular” argument did I make?  Or are these just buzzwords you apply to any argument for the existence of God.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/4-tips-for-placing-yourself-in-the-presence-of-god/#ixzz2K3PtWDMQ

“If there is no objective truth”
Science.
“If there is no transcendant truth, there is no objective reason ...”
Your statement is a silly non sequitur.
“based on fallacies”
Of course we each accuse the other of fallacies.
“Read more:”
Link fails to go anywhere under Firefox.

Well Earl, if the link isn’t working, use that highly rational brain of yours to find it in a search engine.

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“If there is no objective truth”  Science.—

What makes “scientific” truth’s objectively superior to other truths? 
If everyone in the world decided to reject science, by what objective standard could you judge that to be wrong? 

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“If there is no transcendant truth, there is no objective reason ...”
Your statement is a silly non sequitur.—

How so? I think its pretty obvious you are dodging the question because you can’t answer it without either acknowleding (1) a transcendant aspect to reality or (2) that your world view is incoherent.

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—“based on fallacies” Of course we each accuse the other of fallacies.—

You are responding to yourself here.  The “based on fallacies” quote came from your original comment, which I was responding to.  So again, your new comment is not responsive to anything.

Will Jensen/ Earl wrote:

—““Read more:” Link fails to go anywhere under Firefox.—

Wow Will/Earl, you’re right! I guess because I posted a broken link, God doesn’t exist after all! In reality, the link simply loops back around to this article.  It was included in error. Whenever you cut and paste from the comments the “read more” link is included by default.  That should have been fairly obvious from the fact that the title of this article (remember, the topic that originally brought you here?) is right there in the URL.

“What makes “scientific” truth’s objectively superior to other truths?”
That is an idiotic question.
“dodging the question”
There is no “transcendent truth” - whatever that means.  There is no “transcendent aspect to reality”.
“that your world view is incoherent”
Your opinion is silly.  Of course a world view without the supernatural is rational and coherent.
Of course we also need to accuse each other of being irrational.
“your new comment is not responsive to anything.”
So what?  You have nothing to respond to.  You have no evidence of anything supernatural or “transcendent”.

Lawyers for a Catholic hospital argue that “28-week-old fetuses” are not “persons” in the sense of a “wrongful death” lawsuit.  Hypocrisy?  Of course.  Money trumps morality.

You can bet those lawyers are not faithful Catholics.  Lawyers will use the law to manipulate a situation, and since the warped laws of our nation deny the definition of personhood to the unborn, that was the loopholes the lawyers used.  And many Catholic hospitals, like Catholic universities are not faithful either.  They are Catholic in name only.  Once the diocese found out, they corrected the situation. 

Newsflash Earl:  no one here cares if you think our opinions are silly.  Coming from someone of your intellectual level, that is a compliment.

“Coming from someone of your intellectual level”
Genetic fallacy.  I am now reading Walter Kaufman - Critique of Religion and Philosophy (1958).  Aquinas: “death to heretics”.  That justified the Inquisition.  He thinks that no religion is justified because no religion has any evidence.

Am I supposed to be impressed by that?

The point is - a Catholic hospital could have saved those “babies” and chose not to.

It’s not a question of not trying to save the babies.  It’s a question of a judgment call and the fact that the OB on call did not answer his page.  The ER staff tried frantically to save the mother (which, in turn, would have potentially saved the babies).  By the time she died, the babies were dead too.  It was too late to do anything for them at that point.  If the OB had been there, maybe it would have been obvious to him that he needed to do a c-section simultaneously with the resuscitation efforts.  Or maybe it would have been obvious that efforts to save the mother were futile, so a c-section was in order while she was still alive.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  The hospital is being sued because the husband feels that better judgment would have saved the mother and the two babies.  Your use of quotes around the word babies is disgusting.  I am a former OBGYN nurse, and I worked at a secular hospital with a NICU that treated 28-week babies all the time, and babies from 23-weeks on were transferred to a bigger hospital where they often survived.  If you think that your pathetic life is worth more than the life of a 28-week old “fetus”, you are sadly mistaken.

It’s not a question of not trying to save the babies.  It’s a question of a judgment call and the fact that the OB on call did not answer his page.  The ER staff tried frantically to save the mother (which, in turn, would have potentially saved the babies).  By the time she died, the babies were dead too.  It was too late to do anything for them at that point.  If the OB had been there, maybe it would have been obvious to him that he needed to do a c-section simultaneously with the resuscitation efforts.  Or maybe it would have been obvious that efforts to save the mother were futile, so a c-section was in order while she was still alive.  Hindsight is always 20-20.  The hospital is being sued because the husband feels that better judgment would have saved the mother and the two babies.

Your use of quotes around the word babies is disgusting.  I am a former OBGYN nurse, and I worked at a secular hospital with a NICU that treated 28-week babies all the time, and babies from 23-weeks on were transferred to a bigger hospital where they often survived.  If you think that your pathetic life is worth more than the life of a 28-week old “fetus”, you are sadly mistaken.

Earl wrote:  -“What makes “scientific” truth’s objectively superior to other truths?” That is an idiotic question.-

Yet you cannot even attempt to answer it?  When you say scientifically verifiable “truths” are objectively superior to any other forms of truth, what standard are you using to make that determination?  See http://www.mark-shea.com/pad.html:  “In the atheistic universe of Is the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Adolf Hitler” can have no greater or lesser Oughtness than the biochemical reactions going on in the piece of matter called “Martin Luther King Jr.” They just Are. Attempts to impose meaning or value judgments on these biochemical processes are, in the final materialist analysis, simply one more sample of the human brain’s innate tendency toward pattern-making—which, according to Dawkins, is the source of the God Delusion.” 

Earl wrote: -“dodging the question” There is no “transcendent truth” - whatever that means.  There is no “transcendent aspect to reality”.-

So you admittedly don’t know what the term means yet you can say with confidence that it doesn’t exist? Not very “rational” of you.  And if you say there is no “transcendent truth,” you admit that there is no criteria by which you world view could be judgment as “correct.”

Earl wrote: -“that your world view is incoherent” Your opinion is silly.  Of course a world view without the supernatural is rational and coherent.
Of course we also need to accuse each other of being irrational.-

The incoherence of you world view is established above.  You maintain that scientific “truths” are the only “truths” anyone should believe, but you cannot articulate why any belief - right, wrong, or indifferent - SHOULD be better than any other.  If we all cease to exist upon death, it is of no consequence whether we lived our lives under the “God Delusion” or not. It is irrelevant whether we believed rational things or irrational things. And perhaps more importantly, on atheism there is not, in this world, any standard for what we should and should not do, apart from societal norms. If Hitler wins the war, there is no basis for condemning the Holocaust because there is no standard by which to say its wrong.

Earl wrote: - “your new comment is not responsive to anything.”
So what?  You have nothing to respond to.  You have no evidence of anything supernatural or “transcendent”.-

The “so what” here is that you are having a conversation with yourself, which is either a sign of insanity or solopsism.  Either way, it seriously calls into question anything you have to say.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/4-tips-for-placing-yourself-in-the-presence-of-god/#ixzz2KcBN911t

Posted by Claire on Sunday, Feb 10, 2013 9:23 AM (EDT):Your use of quotes around the word babies is disgusting. 

Disqusting as it is, that is the only logical result of Earl’s purely materialistic/reductionist world view.  No life, even human life, has any intrinsic value if it is simply the result of blind, random forces. This is the inconvenient truth that the New Atheists try to minimize/hide/ignore, but the Old Atheists like Satre were well aware that their atheism rendered existence absurd. (And in the end, Satre himself refused to accept that.)

“If you think that your pathetic life ...”
Hilarious.
“what standard are you using to make that determination?”
Reality.
From Wikipedia: “Transcendent truths are those unaffected by time or space.”  There are no such “truths”.
“you cannot articulate why any belief ...”
Beliefs that correspond to reality are better.  Delusions are worse.
“it is of no consequence”
Correct.  So why do you think that you should be able to impose your morality upon others?
“No life, even human life, has any intrinsic value if ...”
Nihilism is not any fun.

Neither is trolling, to people who have better things to do with their time.