Saturday, September 1, 2012

Haywood II

<<Your initial point was that "atheism" can't mean what it currently means, but only what it used to mean. Now you seem to be claiming that descriptive words mean what they currently mean, but words that describe social phenomena mean not what they currently mean, but what their etymology indicates they used to mean. Can you provide me with a comprehensive list of which types of words mean what the speaker or the majority of people intend, and which words can mean only what the original meaning was?>>
Sacerdotus replies:
No, my initial point was that Atheism is not what some Atheists want it to mean. A list of words would be: Water, Hot, Cold, Air, Male, Female, Black, White, Red, Blue, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, Baby, Adult, Fetus, Embryo. These words have a determined meaning that cannot change otherwise what's the point of even having words?
<<I linked data that showed most scientists do not believe in god. Instead of even attempting to refute or address, you claimed that not all scientists are atheists. Your claims about statistics on atheists converting to theism are simply that, your claims. BVG is not evidence for Yahweh in any way, shape or form.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
The data is out of date. I provided a more up to date source, go check it out. I did not write the book, so they cannot be my claims. Please explain how the BVG is not evidence of Yahweh.
<<"Atheism has nothing to do with 'disbelief.'"
The dictionary disagrees with you. You and the dictionary will have to debate the issue, or agree to disagree.
Your claims on the "filter of atheism" are based on your misrepresentation of what atheism is. You claim it's "insistence there can't be a god" as opposed to its real meaning of "disbelief in gods". I disbelieve everything for which there's no evidence, as you do (with your one exception). So atheists run evidence through the filter of disbelieving things which lack evidence? OK, since that filters out nothing, as opposed to running things through the filter of belief that the Bible/Christianity/Catholic dogma cannot be contradicted, which filters out many things.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
Not just the dictionary agrees with me, but those in academia who study words; English ones in particular. The definition you use for Atheism is a colloquial one.
Let me pose this question. Suppose someone you know is gravely ill. The doctors tell you that this person will die in one hour. You are distraught and ask a priest who has the gift of healing to pray over this individual. The priest does and the person recovers instantly, gets up and leaves as if nothing was wrong. Will you believe this to be God or coincidence? If you believe it to be coincidence, then you are using the filter I mentioned. You are blocking your mind from seeing evidence clearly in order to be loyal to Atheism.
<<Are you actually claiming you had heard of Leah Libresco before she came out as a theist? I had not. And are you claiming that showing up at the Reason Rally makes her well known?>>

Sacerdotus replies:
Yes, of course I have heard of her! She is well known in academic circles and in the blogosphere. She has been on CNN, and was an avid activist for Atheism. She was one of the real Atheists, not the Twitter ones who just go around posting silly things to satisfy attention needs. I invite you to dialog with her as well.
<<I did not misunderstand your analogy, I identified a flaw in it. Your analogy used peers (a misbehaving man and a woman) to represent the relationship between man and God and rationalize God's behavior toward man after sin. I corrected it to a better analogy; the relationship between a misbehaving child and her parent.>>
Sacerdotus replies:
The flaw was your understanding, not my analogy. Yes, my analogy used a man and woman because that man is Adam and that woman is Eve. I am merely staying true to the original story. Remember, Adam/Eve represent humanity in the story of Genesis.
<<Your posts here show that you are lacking in either logic or honesty. I can't say which.>>
Sacerdotus replies:

Ah the infamous ad hominem of the Atheist :) This is a sign the Atheist is losing. 


  1. Wow, editing the conversation from what it was into what you wish it was? That's a new level of dishonesty that I don't think I've seen yet. Congratulations for lowering the bar.

    Why not just change my words? It might be more successful, and there's really no difference, honesty-wise.

    P.S. You might want to falsify the "man/woman analogy" thing further. Even from your out of context snippet, it's clear that you're wrong; substituting Adam/Eve for man/God.

    1. What are your ranting about? All I did was copy and paste your text and include them within <<>>.

  2. I apologize; you are correct. I misremembered and thought you had already replied to those comments.

    I do, however, decline your change of venue. I will not debate on your blog.


Thank you for reading and for your comment. All comments are subject to approval. They must be free of vulgarity, ad hominem and must be relevant to the blog posting subject matter.


Catholic Church (791) God (410) Jesus (351) Atheism (344) Bible (323) Jesus Christ (289) Pope Francis (237) Atheist (229) Liturgy of the Word (198) Science (157) LGBT (147) Christianity (139) Gay (82) Pope Benedict XVI (81) Rosa Rubicondior (79) Abortion (76) Prayer (66) President Obama (57) Liturgy (56) Physics (53) Philosophy (52) Vatican (51) Christian (50) Blessed Virgin Mary (48) Christmas (43) New York City (43) Psychology (43) Holy Eucharist (38) Women (35) Politics (34) Biology (32) Baseball (31) Supreme Court (31) NYPD (27) Religious Freedom (27) Health (24) Traditionalists (24) priests (24) Space (23) Pope John Paul II (22) Racism (22) Theology (21) Evil (20) First Amendment (20) Apologetics (19) Death (19) Pro Abortion (19) Protestant (19) Astrophysics (18) Christ (18) Evangelization (18) Child Abuse (17) Donald Trump (17) Illegal Immigrants (17) Priesthood (17) Pro Choice (17) Police (16) Pedophilia (15) Marriage (14) Vatican II (14) Divine Mercy (12) Blog (11) Eucharist (11) Gospel (11) Autism (10) Jewish (10) Morality (10) Muslims (10) Poverty (10) September 11 (10) Cognitive Psychology (9) Easter Sunday (9) Gender Theory (9) Holy Trinity (9) academia (9) CUNY (8) Human Rights (8) Pentecostals (8) Personhood (8) Sacraments (8) Big Bang Theory (7) Condoms (7) David Viviano (7) Ellif_dwulfe (7) Evidence (7) Hispanics (7) Spiritual Life (7) Barack Obama (6) Hell (6) Humanism (6) NY Yankees (6) Babies (5) Cyber Bullying (5) Gender Dysphoria Disorder (5) Massimo Pigliucci (5) Podcast (5) Pope Pius XII (5) The Walking Dead (5) Angels (4) Donations (4) Ephebophilia (4) Pope Paul VI (4) Catholic Bloggers (3) Death penalty (3) Evangelicals (3) Founding Fathers (3) Pluto (3) Pope John XXIII (3) Baby Jesus (2) Dan Arel (2) Eastern Orthodox (2) Encyclical (2) Freeatheism (2) Oxfam (2) Penn Jillette (2) Pew Research Center (2) Plenary Indulgence (2) Cursillo (1) Dan Savage (1) Divine Providence (1) Fear The Walking Dead (1) Pentecostales (1)