Page 10 of 16

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:33 am
by psillery
Looks like our old friend Royalosiodhachain, AKA Saint Stephen is back posting as "Gabriel" over on Irish Catholics.

I'd know that misuse of the quote function anywhere!

http://irishcatholics.proboards56.com/i ... thread=299

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:37 am
by nozzferrahhtoo
psillery wrote:Looks like our old friend Royalosiodhachain, AKA Saint Stephen is back posting as "Gabriel" over on Irish Catholics.

I'd know that misuse of the quote function anywhere!
Beat me to it, I just came back here to post that very same comment. The posting time is also similar.

Posted: Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:45 am
by inedifix
So he's promoted himself from a Royal, to a Saint, and now an Angel :shock: If he gets banned again he'll be back as Jesus!

I

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:03 am
by Superstitious Fool
inedifix wrote:So he's promoted himself from a Royal, to a Saint, and now an Angel :shock: If he gets banned again he'll be back as Jesus!

I
Maybe, but this time he won't rise again.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:07 am
by Superstitious Fool
CelticAtheist wrote:The balance of probabilities is heavily against
gods existence..
How? Please answer with empirical evidence.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:20 am
by Superstitious Fool
inedifix wrote:I can only speak for myself Michael, but my answer would be: no, not at all. I start from the observation of a purely natural world around me, and then build a logical structure on that. When the building process reveals time, and time again, that the initial observation appears to be correct, I accept that it probably was, but I don't give up building, or asking searching questions.

Wouldn't it be more true to say, that from the traditional Catholic's perspective, once the "truth" has been "revealed" no more questions are necessary, all the evidence you need is in? And that having assumed the unproven existence of truth you cannot see, touch, measure, or describe, that you affirm all other points of view to be false?

And they're not mischievous questions either...
I know they are not mischievous questions. Some Catholics are absolutely certain or convince themselves all the time that what they believe is true. Others, including me, are not sure all the time or even most of the time. When I do have doubts, however, I have always so far decided, based on what I have seen, read and heard, that faith is much more plausible than atheism.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:25 am
by mkaobrih
Superstitious Fool, you seem like a decent person – why not come over to our side – were not that bad and their is no guilt associated with us.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:36 am
by Superstitious Fool
mkaobrih wrote:Superstitious Fool, you seem like a decent person – why not come over to our side – were not that bad and their is no guilt associated with us.
No, you come over here. We're OK too and we have no guilt either. You seem to have an idea of us that has nothing to do with reality.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:50 am
by mkaobrih
Superstitious Fool wrote: No, you come over here. We're OK too and we have no guilt either. You seem to have an idea of us that has nothing to do with reality.
Well how can I join you? - I’d have to believe in so many things. To join us you would just have to be yourself.

Posted: Tue Dec 02, 2008 12:57 am
by Ygern
MichaelG,

Your answer is disappointingly disingenuous. There are a lot of questions on page 6 of this thread that you haven't answered or even provided an explanation for - let alone actual 'evidence'.

You're not going to win any points by claiming that you want evidence at this point in the argument. So far all you have done is recite your personal Credo; which as you know is not sufficient to convince anyone on this forum.

So far you have all our respect and attention - do us the courtesy of addressing our questions.

Grania