Yes!  Spot on!  Just as Alexander the Great conquered and helped unify the culture of the ancient world to help pave the way for the spreading of the Gospel, the internet bloggers and other new media through technology have conquered the informational divide to pave the way for the new evangelization and help unite all of us in Christ!  :-)

You have some very interesting thoughts, Mrs. Fulwiler. I particularly find your acknowledgement of the expression of love - as an action - to be especially necessary. Peace be with you.

Sorry, I’m not buying it.  I’m sure people said similar things about TV, and we have had some wonderful TV presences, like Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen and Mother Angelica, but on the whole I would say TV has debased our culture.  As for the Internet, although again there are and will be some very good apostolates, in sheer volume these do not compare with pornography.

absolutely right, Jen.  I currently have two young men (20 & 19) who just began their RCIA journey.  What compelled them? The truth they found in Catholicism through the internet.  They are very informed about the WHOLE history of the Church—not just the Inquisition, Reformation, etc.  One kid is actually reading the Catechism ON HIS OWN prior to joining RCIA.  Inspiring!

“...the past seven years have seen a fivefold increase in people who call themselves atheists, to 5% of the population, according to WIN-Gallup International, a network of pollsters. Meanwhile, the proportion of Americans who say they are religious has fallen from 73% in 2005 to 60% in 2011.”-The Economist

When one compares the same seven year period with internet usage trends it becomes fairly clear which groups are benefiting and those that are not.

Let’s be careful when using polls as resource material….stats can be used to fool as many people as possible. Mrs. Fulwiler is referring to genuine events which are undeniable, as I have found out for myself. There is nothing ‘to buy’ here. It is free,and it is true. The author is an honest, humble disciple of the Lord. God bless.

Agree…somewhat.  With respect to blogs, the internet is a great place to sound-off on a licit argument.  Too often someone makes a unrelated comment and the discussion turns to that comment and away from the original content.  There is no Sister Mary Albert to keep the discussion “on-point”, hence the entire discussion is trashed because of the trolls who seek out these discussion threads.  Apple, however is sitting on a GOLD MINE and doesn’t know it yet.  Apps are more personal, SAFER by far and interaction can be tweeted, facebooked, emailed etc.  Apps are part of the new media like the internet was before Apps.  There are several companies devoted exclusively to the App media, i.e. www.stclementepress.org and www.catholicquiz.com who have and will continue make a huge impact on the “new media” with Apps and iBooks of material lost for 200-300 years.

God Bless you Jennifer your work is first class…

The key sticking point: “...anyone honestly seeking the truth…”.

I’ve been involved in any number of long combox discussions where the human ability to dodge the truth has reached truly monumental proportions. People can nod in blissfully untroubled agreement with the dogmatic statement ‘there is no truth’ or the absolute nature of claim ‘there are no absolutes’ and so on. The can respond endlessly with, for example, details of their popular magazine-level understanding of the odd nature of current sub-nuclear physics to attempt to get around the law of non-contradiction. They can appeal to any number of mystical concepts to defend the claim there are no mystical concepts - and so on, I’m sure you’ve seen it.

And that’s not counting the pure trolls.

So, yes, this may work - for people who are open to the truth. Unfortunately, the spirit of Pontius Pilate lives on.

The internet will give Catholics exposure to information not approved by the Church. Don\‘t you think that\‘s dangerous?
.
Of course they already have access to pornography.

I’m an evangelical convert to Catholicism via the internet.  My early online bible study let to deep scripture study, Church history, and finally theology. And the best part is, it’s all free!

It was Fr. Barron’s YouTube video on Eckhart Tolle’s _A New Earth_ that kept me thinking about my Catholicism.  I kept watching it over and over, my conscience pricking at me that not everything was quite right with Tolle’s book.  Thank you, Fr. Barron!!

The Catholic case is simple:
Jesus was on Earth and this is confirmed by numerous historical sources.
Despite widespread opposition by the ruling empire, Jesus’s followers spread his message, the good news, throughout the empire and eventually to every corner of the world.
The message was one of repentance from sin and believing in Jesus’s message of love and forgiveness.
Jesus established a Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. So athiests fire away with your flippant, childish comments which rarely (sometimes you do though) add anything to the conversation.

The internet may provide a forum for an intellectual case in favor of Catholicism, but on the whole it has served to corrupt both Catholics and non-Catholics via ubiquitous pornography, anonymous vulgarity, etc.

Corrupted morals will not be beneficial to the Church overall, despite the fact that those of an intellectual disposition may be able to sort out the good from the bad. And given that 50% of even weekly-Mass Catholic men have problems with internet pornography, I hesitate to celebrate the Internet Revolution, at least until we learn to approach it more cautiously, as it presents a terribly near occasion for sin. The devil will always settle for conversions of mind as long as he gets to keep the heart.

Hey Gloria,
Here’s a fact that might impress you.  The two sites you referenced don’t correspond to one another.  The UNSW Embryology site shows development ending just shy of 9 weeks.  The One Tiny Life site starts at 12 weeks.  Nice try though.  Maybe this is one of those instances Jennifer was referring to where “falsehoods are called out, bad or incomplete ideas collapse under the weight of cross-examination”.

Hi Ryan,
For good or ill, the internet and the new media are there whether we like it or not.  It sounds to me like this conference is there to make the best out of what we have, and Jennifer is excited about the possibilities.  I’m with her on this one.

hey gloria, i love your name.we sing it every sunday. god bless.

Gloria, your point is becoming less and less clear.  First, what exactly is false at the One Tiny Life site?  That’s what you started with.  As for what you conclude with, are you asserting that if a person is “vastly different” from another person, that you can find a justification for killing him?  Does it just come down to how “vastly” is “vastly different” enough?  Hitler had his definition of “vastly different” enough, as did other perpetrators of genocide throughout the ages.  What’s your definition?  Of course, I’m not comparing you to Hitler, but if you think about it honestly, that’s exactly where that line of thinking leads.  So for me, no, once a person is conceived there’s no OK abortion of a pregnancy just because he’s not as old as I think he needs to be.  9 weeks, 9 days, 9 minutes, whatever, “a person’s a person, no matter how small”.

Dear Gloria: Wow….so much vile, hatred, bitterness, darkness.  In our faith, we find Hope and Mercy and Forgiveness and Love and even Joy. We hope you might someday know Jesus too. So great is your obvious need. He will touch you, of that I am certain. Because He hears our prayers and now that we have heard you, we will go to Him for you.

Trolls only grow when you feed them.

The internet played a huge role in my becoming Catholic, and helped me in my journey with God as a new Christian before that (atheist to pagan to agnostic to Protestant to Catholic). And, of course, medical sites made me far more pro-life, as they will for anyone who is thinking logically about the content. The availability of facts, straight, pure, clean, unalloyed facts, on economics, biology, education and foreign policy/military history made me more conservative.

@Morrie:

“The Catholic case is simple:
Jesus was on Earth and this is confirmed by numerous historical sources.
Despite widespread opposition by the ruling empire, Jesus’s followers spread his message, the good news, throughout the empire and eventually to every corner of the world.
The message was one of repentance from sin and believing in Jesus’s message of love and forgiveness.
Jesus established a Church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it. So athiests fire away with your flippant, childish comments which rarely (sometimes you do though) add anything to the conversation.”

## None of that proves anything. It’s much easier to state the case, than to show it is as convincing as one thinks it is. I became Catholic w/o the Internet - but it has helped me to question what I believed. Life is a bit more complex that Catholic apologetic allows. OTOH, I first heard of the molestation crisis through TV, and of the attempts of the Vatican to blame everyone but the Vatican, from the Net.

Polls don’t know what is in people’s hearts, but I wonder how much of the increase in atheists is due to a shift in belief vs a shift in people being honest about what they believe.

I think Jennifer is correct that environments that allows of sincere questions and debate can help bring people to Christ. Many people I know who consider themselves somewhere in the big neighborhood of atheist, agnostic or “spiritual but not religious” where primarily only exposed to people who were really only nominally Christian. The kind of people who identified as Christian out of habit because anything else was just weird.

An atheist friend has admitted the several of us might be changing his mind about God because we do our best to live what we believe. We are far from perfect and fail often, but we try. Before this his primary exposure was to people who called themselves Christian, but didn’t try to live out those beliefs. No wonder he found them lacking.

I’m happy to say farewell to people who were Christians by default because it was a social plus. The hypocrisy turns people away. People who engage others in their beliefs (which new media lets us do) draws people in.

Kate - I can’t agree with “I wonder how much of the increase in atheists is due to a shift in belief vs a shift in people being honest about what they believe.”

Atheists are honest.  They just have found facts that shifted their viewpoint so that it was not necessary to have a God in the world.  That’s what happened in my case.

However, the more that I think about it, the more I believe that the internet allows us to *change* our viewpoint more easily, since (whatever the new viewpoint) it is easy to find some community of people that can support the new hypothesis. 

In short, I think that the internet doesn’t really product more Catholics or more atheists - it just creates more people that are changing from one philosophy to another.

No Gloria, Hitler and his regime were neo-pagans, and persecuted Catholics.  Nice try though.  Also you dodged my question.  I brought up Hitler because that’s where your philosophy eventually leads.  You should face up to that, or show me where I’m wrong.

Gloria…now,now…i didn’t say i worship you, only that your name is beautiful. God has graced you with countless blessings, including a name of praise, and a ‘bunch’ of good people trying to share His truth with you. Do with all that as you wish, but that Hitler comment….really?

Gloria, how is life in troll-land?

Gloria, your thoughts HAVE led to mass exterminations - 6 million Jews under Hitler, and 50 million babies under Roe v. Wade.  And all for the same reasons - those persons weren’t considered as good as other persons, and were therefore expendable.  Hitler was not Catholic.  No matter how he was baptized, he did not practice Catholicism, he persecuted it.  His regime desicrated churches and the Sacraments, killed priests, and demanded their officers sign papers denouncing the Catholic faith.  So, no, it’s people calling Hitler Catholic that is a worn out theme.  Be that as it may, I watched the video you linked to.  I don’t see what it has to do with our conversation, but I gave up six minutes of my life to give you a fair hearing.  At that, it seems, we’ve reached an impasse, so I will say thanks for the discussion and have a blessed day

I don\‘t see what Hitler and Roe v Wade has to do with the conversation. The internet will allow open-minded people to examine all sides of any issue and form their own opinions and make their own decisions. The Church ought to be more threatened by that aspect of the internet—or at least the National Catholic Register.
.
.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/30/catholic-newspaper-scrubs-interview-after-priest-says-children-are-seducers/
.
http://patrick.net/forum/?p=1215926&c=862131
.
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/08/30/Celebrity-priest-says-boys-often-seducers/UPI-37891346362296/
.
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/08/28903/
.
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/note-fr-groeschel-it-wasnt-kids-fault
.
The story will be around for a while….

Gloria: exactly what are you trying to say here?  You’ve provided all kinds of links to all kinds of things without actually saying anything yourself.  A bit passive-aggressive, so let’s just be direct: what is your point in commenting on this blog?

I am a revert to the Christianity of my childhood by way of the Holy Spirit working through a couple of devout close friends (hi Julie!), a gifted pastor whom I encountered just at the right time and place, and the online Catholic presence.  The first Christian blogger I started reading was you, Jennifer, and I’ve found so many other ways to explore the faith through the online world. Those of us who are high-information, geeky, researchy people can find an endless amount of knowledge, each bit of which communicates pieces of a huge puzzle of Truth, and that is utterly irresistible.

P.S.  Don’t feed the troll.  She will get bored and go away if she is ignored.

“The Catholic case is simple:
Jesus was on Earth and this is confirmed by numerous historical sources.”
Well, there are those who disagree with that opinion.
“Despite widespread opposition by the ruling empire, Jesus’s followers”
Actually having the Roman Emperor require citizens to be Christians helped a lot.
“eventually to every corner of the world”
With the Internet, every religion has been spread to every corner of the world.
“The message was one of repentance from sin”
The definition of “sin” only makes sense to a believer - circular.
“believing in Jesus’s message of love”
Hardly all that unique.
“and forgiveness”
Be more specific?  Are there any limits to “forgiveness”?
“Jesus established a Church”
Not quite right?
“gates of Hell”
The definition of “hell” only makes sense to a believer - circular.
“So atheists fire away with your flippant, childish comments”
You have no “evidence” for any tenet of your religion?
“which rarely (sometimes you do though) add anything to the conversation”
Why is there a “conversation”?  You know I am irrational and I know you are irrational.  What could we possible discuss?
“Don’t feed the troll.”
Now that’s more like it.

Hey Gloria!  I was wondering when you would surface again!  Not having been baptized appears to be the root cause of your anger. God bless!

Oh this ought to be fun.  Ok Catholics here’s the deal: here’s an atheist for you, convert my broken sinful heathen ass.  Ask me the question that you think will have hitting the ground on my knees begging Jesus for salvation by the time I’ve formulated an answer.  Ms. Fulwiler seems to think conversion in a combox can happen, let’s see if she’s onto something.

It goes both ways though, so I’m going to put up my own question as well: What reasons do you have to believe that Christianity (Catholicism in particular, but you can answer for either as you like) is any more true or real than Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Zeus, Thor, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the tiny china teapot in orbit between Earth and Mars, Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or any other of the myriad myths you could believe in?

No creature can say anything to convert you. Only GOD can give the grace to understand the TRUTH. I challenge you to read the BIBLE cover to cover if you want to be brought to your knees. GOD will open your eyes and your heart.  And as Gloria stated above, it is free.  Hope to meet you on a future blog after your conversion!  God bless!!

“Only GOD can give the grace to understand the TRUTH.”
Hilarious nonsense to a non-believer.
“read the BIBLE”
Such silly mythology - such a cruel god in the “old testament”.
Adam and Eve and a talking snake and “original sin” - hilarious.
No need for “redemption”.  “Sins of the world” - hilarious.
“God bless!!”
Blessings and $3.95 might buy coffee at you know where.

Jennifer never inferred that God needs the Internet only that her conversion was assisted by her on line research. GOD will help anyone who wants his help.  He is watching over you even as you reject him.

There is a HUGE difference this year between the party of life and the party of death.  Too bad Cardinal Dolan doesn’t perform a mass exorcism at the DNC next week!

To those who believe no proof is necessary.  To those who do not believe, no proof is possible!  God bless!

Jennifer….....If you are reading this blog, please advise what drew you in to the Catholic Church?

“Too bad Cardinal Dolan doesn’t perform a mass exorcism at the DNC next week!”
Hilarious.  As if “exorcism” was not a silly superstition.
“To those who believe no proof is necessary.”
Of course.  They are impervious to reason.  They do not accept that a thousand years with no evidence really is evidence of absence.
“To those who do not believe, no proof is possible!”
Hilarious.  There have been arguments among atheists as to whether or not there could ever be any “evidence” that might indicate a “god”.  There was no consensus.  If there were “evidence”, would it be specific enough to indicate which of the many possible gods was the correct one?
“God bless!”
Such a silly sentimental irrelevant statement.  “Good luck” would be much more appropriate.  Or perhaps “good health”.  Or “live long and prosper”.

“what is your point in commenting on this blog?”
You never can tell.  One person in a thousand might read this comment and consider the irrationality of all religions.

“Jennifer….....If you are reading this blog, please advise what drew you in to the Catholic Church?”
—Lin (3:06 PM)

Mrs. Fulwiler says her atheist father taught her to value truth and seek out the truth no matter where the journey took her. “How the Search for Truth Led Me from Atheism to Catholicism” is the title of article in Why I’m Catholic, the Internet magazine of personal conversion testimonies.

Her interview by Marcus Grodi on the Journey Home program originally broadcast on July 7, 2012 adds additional perspective.  It can be viewed on You Tube, search for program sXmX8NrpaLE .

“Seek and you shall find…”

It’s never been easier; we’ll have fewer excuses.

Thanks for the link to the photos and bios of the new media people.

Jennifer your conversion story was very inspiring!  It has been my experience that people without faith are constantly searching for things to fill the emptiness; money, power, beauty, sex, drugs, alcohol, etc.  And they are angry!  The secular life appears to be easier and “everybody is doing it.”  A major life event often triggers a conversion.  It is about sacrifice but so worth it!  God bless!

One of the things I love about the internet is the ability to find not only information, but challenges to that information. You aren’t just spoon fed the faith, but you learn it on a deeper level because so many people are asking the questions you didn’t think to ask. Also, you can go back and forth and see clearly what the replies are and where it stops. One site says Catholics hate science…another has a link to the Vatican observatory and a list of catholic scientists, the first shouts about the abuse cases. One site says Catholics worship Mary, another replies with details about why not, the first then shouts about the pope loving Hitler. You quickly see where reason lies and where it doesn’t.

I was in Dallas too, but for the Marketing expo. I kept looking for a tall red-head but never saw you. But then again, I was busy buying tons of stuff for a book store. I wish I had realized earlier that there were three events at the same place, I would have tried to get tickets for some of the new media events.

“And they are angry!”
Hilarious.  What are they angry about?  The attempts by the religious to control their lives?  Roe v. Wade was nearly 40 years ago.  Romney promises to reverse it?  Perry stops funding for the health of tens of thousands of women in Texas and turns down millions in Federal dollars?  Oops - there’s a good reason to be angry.
“link to the Vatican observatory and a list of catholic scientists”
Completely irrelevant of course.  How would an astronomer use his faith in observing the millions of galaxies?  The standard reply is that a scientist “checks his religion at the door” when he enters his laboratory or observatory.  There is no “compatibility” between the observations of reality by science and the irrational conjectures of religions.
“You quickly see where reason lies and where it doesn’t.”
You chose “where reason lies” according to your own prejudices of course.  “Reason” lies with science - religion is irrational wishful thinking.

“How would an astronomer use his faith in observing the millions of galaxies?”
Quite simply it’s the philosophical foundation. Knowing that Reason created the universe gives you the confidence that you will find the universe reasonable and knowable. Knowing that the universe was created saves you from the superstitions of the pagans who avoided studying the universe for fear of angering the gods of trees and stars. Basically a Catholic knows that Truth exists and we can come to know it through our use of our intellects.

“The standard reply is that a scientist “checks his religion at the door” when he enters his laboratory or observatory.”
This is simply your world-view talking. Since you cannot see how science and religion can co-exist you suppose that no true scientist could be religious and no true religious person could be a scientist. Ergo, examples of strongly religious and scientific minds are dismissed by your prejudices, and not by facts.

Christina, first off define creation.  Next, describe the evidence you have to indicate that there was an intelligence behind the creation of the universe (I’ll help you, complexity in itself, is NOT evidence that something is created.  First off, complexity is a subjective descriptor, second, complicated things come about by themselves by natural processes all the time).  After that, tell us how you know this intelligence is in fact the Christian god, and lastly, tell us how you know that god’s mind, how you interpret it and how you know it cares about you, your welfare, your sex life, what you had for dinner last friday etc.

1) Creation = everything visible and invisible that cannot bring itself into being
2) Read a book on philosophy, I’d recommend a book by Feser since you seem to like snark. Personally, I was won over by the primary mover argument.
3) Because Catholicism has proved true time and again and is based on a historically verifiable event (Christ’s death and resurrection), and I’ve had a personal encounter with God.

“Knowing that Reason created the universe gives you the confidence that you will find the universe reasonable and knowable.”
We have already found that the universe is “knowable”.  There is obviously no requirement that “Reason created the universe”.  That’s simply a non-sequitur.
“we can come to know it through our use of our intellects.”
Correction - we come to know it through science.
“you suppose that no true scientist could be religious and no true religious person could be a scientist.”
Of course I did not say that.  What I said was that a person can compartmentalize his life into science and “other”.  Humans are really good at rationalizing such compartmentalization.  A religious social club is a lot of “fun” most of the time.
“examples of strongly religious and scientific minds are dismissed by your prejudices”
The point is that being religious cannot possibly actually help a scientist do scientific work.  There is no religious “knowledge” that can possibly help a scientist.
“Creation = everything visible and invisible that cannot bring itself into being”
Hilarious.  “Cannot bring itself into being” is just silly.  Perhaps you mean “cannot be brought into being by a known cause”.  But the bottom line remains - you have only one example - our known universe.  The claim that science does not YET know how our universe came into being is simply a “god of the gaps” fallacy.  Not to mention that it happened 13.7 billion years ago and there could not be any possible connection to any existing man-made religion.
“I was won over by the primary mover argument.”
From Wikipedia:  “Plato (c. 427–347 BC) and Aristotle (c. 384–322 BC) both posited first cause arguments, though each had certain notable caveats.”
Of course the obvious question becomes - if there was a first cause 13.7 billion years ago, what makes you think that has anything to do with Christianity.
“Because Catholicism has proved true time and again”
Only if Catholics get to define the word “true”.
“I’ve had a personal encounter with God.”
Personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence.  But they might be evidence of another kind.

Even if we were to accept the prime mover argument (which is just that, an argument, it’s not a mechanism or a means by which one could test a mechanism), and we were to accept that we just can’t know what went on at the beginning of the universe bacause we can’t see back that far due to the last scattering surface, it doesn’t give any scope to theism of any stripe.  Saying we don’t know is a perfectly ok thing to do, it drives us to do more science and learn more.  What’s not ok is for theists to say we know our God did it, it’s the TRUTH (tm) and leave it there.  Which would bring me back to my original question: how would you then know it’s your iteration of God, not Zeus, Vishnu, the Flying Spaghetti Monster etc.

“Correction - we come to know it through science.”
Science does not explain everything (mathematics, philosophy, art are but a few examples), but we can come to know things through our intellects. What is science apart from an intellect to understand it? Are you saying science exists outside of human reason? That there is something beyond the material world that can exist even if there is no human mind to comprehend it?

“Perhaps you mean “cannot be brought into being by a known cause”.”
Nope, I meant what I said. Everything in this universe is contingent upon something else for it’s being. No created thing has the capacity to bring itself into being. Yes, we can point to the material causes, I exist because of the sex act my parents participated in, a rock exists because it was molded in the depths of the earth from material that was molded in the depths of stars. Everything is brought into being, so to speak, apart from it’s own will and no created thing can cause it’s own being. I was asked to define creation and I did. The only thing *not* creation is that from which all existence flows. Something which can truly say “I AM”, or in other words, “I am existence itself, nothing created me yet all creation flows from me”

“and we were to accept that we just can’t know what went on at the beginning of the universe bacause we can’t see back that far…”
You do not understand the prime mover argument, I am not a philosopher and cannot explain it well enough. You should read Feser’s book “The Last Superstition” which gives an overview of it or even his book on Aquinas which delves into the arguments even more deeply. And I’ve already told you how I know Catholicism is true, I searched and found it was the only religion based on historical truth and which gives enough evidence that it is upheld by a divine hand throughout the ages. What other institution could plod 2000 years of corruption and mismanagement and still be in business, let alone producing saints?

Clearly you’re no philosopher otherwise you’d recognize this statement “I am existence itself, nothing created me yet all creation flows from me” as special pleading.  And you’ve said there’s evidence for it before but you haven’t presented any.  If it’s that it’s been around awhile, so have Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam isn’t quite to 2000 yet but it’s getting there.  Nature worship, animism and shamanism have been around in one form or another for at least as long as any of those.  And what does producing saints have anything whatever to do with it?

“What is science apart from an intellect to understand it?”
Science - broadly defined - is the method that is used to learn about reality.
“Everything in this universe is contingent upon something else for its being.”
You are misinformed about some aspects of physics.  The rest of your nonsense is simply gibberish.
“The Last Superstition” - subtitled “a refutation of atheism”.  Hilarious.  From a review: “According to Feser, in order for the electron to exist from moment to moment, something external must act on it.”  Another review:  “Ultimately, the book has a lot of problems, including the fact that Feser doesn’t really understand anything that’s happened in philosophy since the Middle Ages.”  And: “Feser expects atheists to see that the most popular arguments for God just aren’t worth their time and they should be focusing on Aristotelian arguments.”  Hilarious.
“I searched and found it was the only religion based on historical truth”
Hilarious nonsense.
“which gives enough evidence”
Riiiight.  For example?
“What other institution could plod 2000 years of corruption and mismanagement and still be in business, let alone producing saints?”
Hilarious squared!!!  Maybe you should follow the money!!

You’re right, I am no philosopher. I majored in astrophysics in college and now work with xml and scripting languages, which is why I keep referring you back to the actual philosophers. You may find them more convincing than a techie in a comment box. Check out Feser, he has a blog which offers you a medium to discuss things with him.

Just writing “hilarious” is not a refutation of what I wrote. Laughing at what someone has said is not a refutation of that argument. Using flippancy to counter an argument deadens your ability to really think about the subject at hand and will only make it harder for you to learn to think clearly in the future. Be careful…

From the Screwtape Letters, “But flippancy is the best of all. In the first place it is very economical. Only a clever human can make a real Joke about virtue, or indeed about anything else; any of them can be trained to talk as if virtue were funny. Among flippant people the Joke is always assumed to have been made. No one actually makes it; but every serious subject is discussed in a manner which implies that they have already found a ridiculous side to it. If prolonged, the habit of Flippancy builds up around a man the finest armor plating against the [God] that I know, and it is quite free from the dangers inherent in the other sources of laughter. It is a thousand miles away from joy, it deadens, instead of sharpening, the intellect; and it excites no affection between those who practice it.”

I must apologize for the personal tenor of my last posting.  If you can’t explain all the points on your view to us, fine, can you at least put one key point in your own words and let us hash it out?  When I’m trying to have a dialog with you, I put up my refutations to your point, and you say “you don’t understand it, go read apologist Joe Schmo,” can you see how I can find that irritating?

I think there is a pretty big difference between saying Joe Schmo and Edward Feser. By example, suppose you didn’t think the theory of relativity was true and a high school student did. If that student told you to go read the writings of a college physics professor instead of debatting the matter with him, would that be irritating? Would it not be worse for the student to presume to be able to teach what he himself does not yet know?

A student can see the argument and realize its truth, see the experiments which give evidence for that truth, and still not be able to give a detailed explanation himself. If someone came up to this student and gave an argument for why relativity is not true, it would still be good for the student to refer back to the original professor. Back to the original article, these combox dialogues can help the student get a better grasp by asking question he didn’t think to ask in the first place, but that doesn’t mean the student is equipped to defend the theory.

I’ve seen the arguments and they made sense. I’ve done the experiment and experienced a Person. At this point, I’ve seen too much evidence of the Truth of God to not believe. I could be persuaded of a deeper truth, but not a lesser one. Like someone who’s seen light bending around a galaxy could never be convinced that ONLY Newtonian physics is true, but perhaps could be convinced there is MORE than relativity. Yet, if another argument seems to say that the original was wrong I can only refer the person back to those with a better grasp on the details, who know the “mathematics behind the science” so to speak. In philosophy I only understand at the “algebra” level and you are asking a “calculus” level question.

“Check out Feser”
Warning - red flags - he writes for Biologos and Catholic Answers Live.
From one of 266 comments on a single post: “You’re going wrong in thinking that matter can in any way coincide with the final cause. The final cause, or the end toward which something is directed, is the cause of matter; for the final cause is that for the sake of which matter is. Therefore the final cause is prior to all matter-form composites.”  Hilarious.  But Feser himself does not appear in the 266 comments.

“Laughing at what someone has said is not a refutation of that argument.”
You are absolutely correct - laughing is the way I dismiss a silly assertion.  Did you actually make an “argument”?  Oh - the Prime Mover “argument” claims to be an argument for an “unmoved mover”.  May I laugh now?

“I’ve done the experiment and experienced a Person.”
And you wonder why I reply “hilarious”.
“I’ve seen too much evidence of the Truth of God to not believe.”
That is not an argument.  That is an assertion from “revelation”.  Of course atheists simply laugh at “revelation”.

“Given that causality is linear, causality or motion must be finally attributed to a first cause, which logically cannot itself be moved, i. e., the unmoved mover.”
I wonder why so few people find this philosophical opinion important.
“The unmoved mover argument asserts that, from our experience of motion in the universe (motion being the transition from potentiality to actuality) we can see that there must have been an initial mover. Aquinas argued that whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another thing, so there must be an unmoved mover.”
Well, it would seem that science has no use for such a strange philosophical “argument” and has therefore completely neglected it.  It would seem that scientific proposals to build an “unmoved mover detector” have failed to receive funding.  Bottom line - apparently a lot of people simply laugh at this “argument” as absurd.

Wow, this title sure brought out alot of us atheists.  Didn’t really expect it on this one. 

My Opinion, Jens 3 points are all true, but unlike church, they are all subject to conflicting data.  When a truth claim is made, it is open to debate and the Catholic church is not prepaired to handle that (IMHO).

Steve b, I owe you a slight apology. I kept mixing you up with some of the other atheist posters. The only thing I’m bunting to a trained philosopher is the arguments for the existence of God. If I’m following the thread right and you are interested in why I believe the Catholic church is the fullness of the truth I can delve into that easily enough.

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/priest-charged-with-hiding-sex-crimes-20120830-253bn.html

wow…this game is really into overtime! it’s a good one…so,JD, you laugh at the unmoved mover-of course a lot of people laugh at it-a lot of people do a lot of things-surely, of all posters, you do not refer to the numbers game as proof of anything…do you?...you want real proof.ie;material/concrete of a spiritual existence?come on now….we only offer considerate arguments which point to a conclusion we choose to label valid, and proceed from there-you are certainly free to disagree/no need to keep laughing at us…if it’s really that funny/pathetic to you why hang around the court? btw, if there is no creator, then there was no beginning, there just always was, in which case time has gone on infinetly, in which case all things should have had an opportunity to have ‘become’, including the chance for all things to stop being, at which point there was nothing , and after that nothing more could be since there would be nothing to come from, and so we shouln’t be here-but we are- so i reject the’ always was without a creator’ idea-please don’t get hurt while you fall off your chair laughing

I’m a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, so this is of great interest to me. So much so, that I believe we all need to determine whether our religious liberties are indeed at risk. So, as a public service, I’ve come up with this little quiz. I call it “How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions.” Just pick “A” or “B” for each question.

1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality—not your superiority.

If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

“we only offer considerate arguments which point to a conclusion we choose to label valid”
I choose to label your arguments as “non-arguments” and your opinions as “wishful thinking”.
“if there is no creator, then there was no beginning, there just always was, in which case ...”
Hilarious gobbledygook.
“please don’t get hurt while you fall off your chair laughing”
I’m ok after 30 seconds or so of recovery.

“Just pick “A” or “B” for each question.”
Hilarious.  Why should one have to choose from a false dichotomy?  Of course the correct answer in every case is “neither of those two silly choices” (if you live in some normal democracy).
“If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake.”
Nope.  You are just confused about reality in the United States.  On the other hand, if this is Iran or Saudi Arabia or others, then yes, you could choose an “A” and you would be correct - your religious liberty as a Christian is limited by the state.
“If you answered “B” to any question”
Then you are even more confused about reality.
Where is your question about the HHS mandate?
A.  A very small part of my insurance money goes to support those in need in a way which is contrary to my rather arbitrary church teachings?

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

“3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.”
What a stupid thing to say!  Unless you are referring to China’s
One Child policy.  But that was not much of a “religious liberty” question.
“B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.”
What a stupid thing to say!  Unless you are a crazy Catholic who demands the undeserved right to control others’ private decisions.  Vote for a theocracy!
Now about IVF.  Do you also demand the undeserved right to make IVF illegal?  How stupid!

Must we not consider the rights of the unconceived?
.
Are humans denying life to other potential humans by just saying “no?” Of course they are. And it is a shame and a blot upon the very concept of personhood. A potential person must be considered a kinetic person. The theology and logic of this is inescapable.
.
A girl or woman, aged at least 17 years plus nine months, more or less, who does not put out without protection in the back seat of a Chevy, or wherever, is actively, and deliberately, denying life to the unconceived. The criminal laws must deal with this ungodly refusal.
.
This is truly a much neglected mission field. Perhaps believers should go out, two by two, to encourage the consummation of lust wherever and whenever it may arise.
.
This is truly a much neglected mission field. Perhaps believers should go out, two by two, to encourage the consummation of lust wherever and whenever it may arise.
.
Then can the faithful proclaim, “God says it. I believe it. And that’s that.

“Must we not consider the rights of the unconceived?”
Hilarious nonsense.
“A potential person must be considered a kinetic person.”
Hilarious nonsense.
“The theology and logic of this is inescapable.”
Hilarious nonsense.
“God says it. I believe it. And that’s that.”
Not so hilarious - but nonsense all the same.  Too bad you will not get to vote for a theocracy this year unless it’s a weird Mormon theocracy.

Now that we have established, beyond any capacity to doubt, the legitimate rights of the unconceived, we must take this argument to its logical and inevitable conclusion.
.
As has been demonstrated, any failure to conceive is tantamount to murder – this is clear, for if it were not so there would be no need to prohibit contraception. And so there exists a moral imperative to prevent the prevention of conception, at all times and in all places, as befits our respect for the sanctity of human life.
.
To that end, whenever the occasion arises of social contact between a male and a female, society should encourage that the two engage in sexual coupling, with no barriers or chemicals to interfere in the desired outcome. In this matter we should ensure that all who possibly could be conceived indeed are conceived. By such means will our society avoid the moral stain of those who demean and deprecate the value of human life.
.
It further stands to reason that such measures apply even in the cases of rape and incest. For the fruit of such unions are no less human lives with the full complement of rights pertaining thereto, than are the issue of other couplings considered more legitimate. Does the offspring of a son and his mother, or a girl and her father, deserve any less to draw breath than the product of a more traditional parentage? Why deprive them of the opportunity for conception, when their odd origins are no fault of their own? And it is certainly no fault of the child of the victim of rape that it exists in her womb, and no justification for its extinguishing.
.
Likewise, it is no fault of the unconceived from a rape that did not occur that it failed to be born. Therefore even rape may be considered a laudable act, and even encouraged, if it result in the creation of a new human life, above which nothing can be valued nor can any higher priority be maintained.
.
Now one may object that we are encouraging unrestricted fornication, and will this not accrue to the detriment of society, since there may be those who will start enjoying it too much? But those who present this objection fail to comprehend human psychology. It has been well established that anything made obligatory ceases to be a source of pleasure. By making the sexual union mandatory in every possible instance in which it might occur, we will be sure to drain it of its amusement. In fact, the common populace may even come to loathe it, which is the surest way to keep it pure and sacred.

Poe’s Law?  From Wikipedia:
“Poe’s law, named after its author Nathan Poe, is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and an exaggerated parody of extremism.”

Maybe you’re starting to figure something out.

“1) Creation = everything visible and invisible that cannot bring itself into being
2) Read a book on philosophy, I’d recommend a book by Feser since you seem to like snark. Personally, I was won over by the primary mover argument.
3) Because Catholicism has proved true time and again and is based on a historically verifiable event (Christ’s death and resurrection), and I’ve had a personal encounter with God.”
So it was all a nonsensical parody?  Good job of impersonating an irrational Catholic!  You fooled me.

Although I suspect the latest posts from “Christina” are indeed some strange trollish parody the posts prior to September 5 are mine and were not intended to be a parody.

I am a stay-at-home mother of four who has tried to raise my family under the same strong Christian values that I grew up with. Therefore I was shocked when my oldest daughter, “Emily,” suddenly announced she had “given up believing in God” and decided to “come out” as an atheist. She said she was “happy” in her decision and that it just “felt right.” She no longer wishes to attend church, speak to the pastor or even participate in family prayers.

I love my daughter dearly, but I am troubled by this turn of events. She has never seriously misbehaved or otherwise given me cause to worry before this. Emily insists she is old enough to make up her own mind, but I simply do not think a girl of 16 has the maturity to make such a life-changing decision. Our pastor cautions me that putting too much pressure on her now might cause her to become even more entrenched in her thinking.

How can I help my daughter see that she is making a serious mistake with her life if she chooses to reject her God and her faith? Can I just chalk this up to teenage rebellion, something she’s bound to outgrow, or do you suppose this is a precursor to some deeper psychological problem?

POLICE MUST NOTIFY RESIDENTS WHEN CATHOLIC CHURCH MOVES INTO NEIGHBORHOOD
Controversial “Egan’s Law” Expected to Gain Widespread Support
Under a new law designed to protect minors, local police departments will now be required to inform residents any time a known Roman Catholic church moves into their neighborhood.

  New Jersey State Senate debating Egan’s Law
The law also mandates that Catholic churches register with authorities, wear electronic monitoring devices, and be prohibited from moving to within a half-mile radius of a school.
A follow-up to Megan’s Law, enacted by New Jersey in 1994, the so-called “Egan’s Law” is named for Cardinal Edward Egan of New York and Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston, who are both accused of covering up sexual abuse by priests under their authority. Like Megan’s Law, Egan’s Law is expected to spread quickly to other states, but for parents in towns across New Jersey, it’s on the books none too soon.
“Last year, we discovered that a Catholic Church had been in our neighborhood for 30 years! And nobody told us!” said Ruth Harper of Redbrook, N.J. “My sons used to walk by that church every day on their way to school. Even now I shudder to think of what might have happened.”
“I always told my kids to steer clear of that place,” added neighbor Scott Carlyle. “But that’s because there were a lot of strange people going in and out at odd hours, even at midnight on Saturdays. I was worried it was some kind of druggie hangout.
“To think the whole time it was a Roman Catholic Church. Now I know why they had all those stained glass windows —. so nobody could look in.”

Critics, however, charge that Egan’s Law is unconstitutional, specifically because it relies on religious profiling and is intended to safeguard only one segment of the population: young males. But State Sen. Carmela Truto, a Catholic who co-sponsored the bill, used church doctrine itself to prove only one segment needs protection.
“In the Catholic Church, after 2,000 years, Mary is still a Virgin,” she said. “So clearly, they’re not interested in girls.”
That statement, however, angered Vatican spokesman Edgar Palowski, who said it propagated a common misconception about the church. “This doesn’t get reported enough,” he said, “but it’s a fact that our priests abuse just as many girls as boys.”
“Oh. Oh dear…” he added.

“I am a stay-at-home mother of four who ...”
This appeared in today’s newspaper under “Advice” by Carolyn Hax.
Did you read her answer?  Washington Post 4 days ago:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/daughters-turnabout-on-religion-shakes-mothers-faith/2012/09/04/1e6ead68-f3a9-11e1-a612-3cfc842a6d89_story.html
“So I’ll ask again, what would you have nonbelievers do? Lie? Even people who want and try to believe just … can’t. Or don’t. I’m living proof.”
Helmut Mehta approves of her advice:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2012/09/09/columnist-offers-great-advice-to-mother-concerned-about-daughters-atheism/
“What a terrific response. She offers good advice while still politely scolding the mother for thinking there was something wrong with her daughter in the first place.”

“POLICE MUST NOTIFY RESIDENTS WHEN ...”
Silly satirewire.com:
http://www.satirewire.com/news/march02/egan.shtml

“Although I suspect the latest posts from “Christina” are indeed some strange trollish parody the posts prior to September 5 are mine and were not intended to be a parody.”
Yes, I see (maybe).  On a scale of 1 to 10 (10 being completely irrational), posts before Sept 5 are only a 9 and the later posts are at least 12 (way, way off scale).
“Laughing at what someone has said is not a refutation of that argument.”
If you actually had an argument, maybe I would not laugh.  But you don’t.

“I’m a religious person with a lifelong passion for civil rights, ...”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rev-emily-c-heath/how-to-determine-if-your-religious-liberty-is-being-threatened-in-10-questions_b_1845413.html
followed by over 2000 comments

“Must we not consider the rights of the unconceived?  ...”
http://freethoughtblogs.com/kagin/2012/08/26/the-rights-of-the-un-conceived-as-a-forgotten-mission-field/

“Now that we have established, beyond any capacity to doubt, the legitimate rights of the unconceived ...”
“Note: The following article is satire.”
http://www.judeochristianity.org/immodest_proposal_birth_control.htm

Dishonest plagiarisms all.  I should have been suspicious that no one would compose such stuff as their original thoughts and post it on this comment thread.

Would you have read it otherwise? At least I got you to look at a reductio ad absurdum. I knew you’d be able to look it up, and if you knew it was a quote up front, you would have brushed it aside.

I SO agree with this writer!  In fact, I believe the sole reason God has allowed the development of the new media is to promote the preaching of the gospel and spread of the Truth around the world. We should ALL be using media to evangelize, using every opportunity as we explore sites, read/respond to articles, etc.  Engage the culture!  Contend for the faith!  Speak the Truth in love!  BE the Church MILITANT!  I’d love to be part of a religious order that is devoted to such a charism.  Does anybody know of one?  Maybe I should start one?!

MMiller…........I totally agree with your post!  There is supposed to ba a Catholic web domain soon so we should be sure of getting the TRUTH.

“I believe the sole reason God has allowed the development of the new media”
Hilarious.  Science and technology had nothing to do with it - it’s all the work of Zeus or Thor or Osiris.
“I’d love to be part of a religious order that is devoted to such a charism.”
Kill blasphemers - oops - that religion already has quite a few members.
“There is supposed to be a Catholic web domain soon so we should be sure of getting the TRUTH.”
You religious crazies are soooo humorous.  Define “truth” - what the Pope says?

“At least I got you to look at a reductio ad absurdum.”
Nah.
“you would have brushed it aside”
I brushed them aside in 10 seconds with “hilarious nonsense”.

jd hughes…you’re a bully. go home…

“you’re a bully”
Yes, it is quite unfair of me to pick on people who are pretty much
incapable of rational thought in many areas because they are blinded by their religion and its dogma.
Copied from a comment at WEIT:
“Our horizons and our perspective make it basically impossible for us to comprehend how utterly irrelevant we are to the Cosmos.”
Yes.  Many, many billions of stars and planets in our galaxy - many billions of galaxies.  Such a tiny pale blue dot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pale_Blue_Dot
“Subsequently, the title of the photograph was used by Sagan as the main title of his 1994 book, Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space.”
Such a vision.  Compare to Islamic rage and murder because of supposed “blasphemy”.  Compare to Catholics desire to control other people with contraception, IVF and abortion.
Life on Earth for 3.5 billion years.  An asteroid helped wipe out the dinosaurs 67 million years ago.  Tiny little mammals evolved into apes, dolphins, whales, elephants, and humans.  Such unfathomable contingency!

Quoted from the Internet:
“Unlike the founders of most religions, about whom very little is known, Mormonism is the product of the plagiarisms and confabulations of an obvious con man, Joseph Smith, whose adventures among the credulous were consummated (in every sense) in the full, unsentimental glare of history. Given how much we know about Smith, it is harder to be a Mormon than it is to be a Christian.”