Athias

It's just another word people use instead of "soul" in this case. I definitely see soul and human more often, but it has come up before.

Catholics would refer to prayer as communication between God and humanity.  Yet they would see - interestingly enough - not unlike the protestants that prayer is something we can do on behalf of other people.     The Bible commands the people of God to make intercession on behalf of others to God. Every minister - whether protestant or Catholic makes intercession on behalf of their congregations and yet this intercession is not seen as somehow interfering with the fact that there is one mediator between God and man.  

It is not prayer that is the mediator and it is not even the person we pray to who must be the mediator.  Catholics have no issue with Jesus being the mediator. Mary is in that sense - not a mediator when people pray to her - Catholics and even the Orthodox would see Mary as merely another intercessor - who will speak and pray to the mediator.  

Catholics do not see the images as items to worship. Rather they represent in their minds and in their service - the God who is behind the image.  This is in contrast to the pagan times in the OT where such items were actually worshiped as real gods.  

It is well known that many very early statues of Mary were actually rededicated statues of the Great Mother in the Forms in which She was worshipped in the late Classical world. The eclectic spiritual attitudes found among many Hindu and Buddhist populations today were not uncommon in the ancient West, and the Christian Church did not always discourage them too much, especially when they were struggling to win over a "pagan" population.

It isn't. It is rectangular, longer than it is wide. Take a photo with a telephoto lense and the visual field is distorted.  

Unusual but not necessarily unprecedented.  It's happened before and it will happen again. He was getting old. He had made a mess of a few things. It's better to retire than simply go on making mistakes until you die. 

It's what the early church did.  It's quite biblical. It commemorates the day Jesus rose from the dead.

Read the book of Hebrews.

Hence, all Christians are now in a perpetual rest from sin.

Yet since the Sabbath is eternally being celebrated - we have not somehow replaced it with Sunday.

It is an abomination and ought not be tolerated. the perpetrators ought to be arrested put in prison and the keys thrown away. They ought to be derobed and sanctioned.  Parishes condoning such behaviour should be flushed out - and leadership removed - with new people put in.

The problem I tend to run into is that most pro-lifers tend to believe in souls (usually instilled in the zygote at fertilization). Some will use words like "conscience" or "humanity," but essentially they're pointing at something that you can't prove is there.

Newly confirmed Catholic. Would love any questions from anyone. 

Quit asking for evidence and provide some of you're own, silly. 

that is negotiated between the speaker (claimant) and the audience (recipient)

If a claimant is to satisfy their onus--particularly an evidentiary burden--and you reject the claimant's claim as fact which naturally incorporates your criteria-it's being known to the claimant notwithstanding--does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria, and by extension substantiate your rejection of the claim as fact? 

ok, let me just say, you've really raised the bar here

i mean, i always enjoy our exchanges

but this one really takes-the-cake

does it not behoove you to explicitly state and justify said criteria,

IF AND ONLY IF i respect the individual demanding an explanation

in the same way, someone who is declined a job is not generally provided with, and is certainly not OWED "a reason why they were not hired"

i disagree

simply because someone presents a claim

that does not magically transfer the burden-of-proof

from the speaker to the recipient

i need to be able to verify the existence of the item in question myself, personally

or, alternatively receive confirmation from a "trusted-source" that, and this is critical, i personally consider reliable on such matters

yes, that and my perceived "lack of necessity" of a belief in an absolutely "factual" bigfoot

generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma

It's your position that Bigfoot isn't fact by reason of its not being demonstrated using the scientific method and verified by multiple independent review teams who've rendered their conclusions at ideally a 95% confidence level?

yes, that and my perceived "lack of necessity" of a belief in an absolutely "factual" bigfoot

Well, one might suggest that mass vaccination was successful.

Meaning that although covid is still prevalent, it has less potential to be as harmful as it originally was. 

And therefore peoples fears have been assuaged

ok, all claims that propose the addition and or subtraction and or modification of one's ONTOLOGY require a case to be made for them

generally one does not ask for evidence either in support of something they already believe or contrary to something they already do not believe

for example, if i made the claim

your mother is NOT your "real biological mother"

you would probably demand some sort of compelling evidence before accepting this type of claim

"a tennis ball's being in there has not been proven true."

this statement is very nearly indisputable

i guess it could be reframed as,

"i am currently unaware of any conclusive evidence that would justify a positive believe in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box"

and implicitly,

"if you are currently aware of conclusive evidence that would justify a positive belief in a tennis ball within this particular unopened box, please share it with me"

generally speaking, empirically demonstrable using the scientific method and multiple independent peer review teams meeting a minimum confidence of at least one sigma and ideally at least two sigma

every statement made by a person is a personal statement

yes, and this is the case for everyone, whether they realize it or not

all (positive) claims require a case to be made for them

otherwise they are naked claims (bald assertions)

if i claimed that bigfoot stole my toothbrush

would you believe me ?

the default when confronted with an unfamiliar proposed idea, concept, and or object

the default is to maintain your ONTOLOGY as it was BEFORE such a proposal

here's another example

applicants for entry to my ONTOLOGY are like people interviewing for a job

i may or may not give them a chance to present their case, depending on the urgency of vacancy

if i find a "pretty good" applicant, i may decline to interview other applicants whom i may not have yet considered

i do not currently have a position available for "FACTUAL" BIGFOOT

you choose which guests are allowed to enter your home

you do not owe anyone an explanation for NOT allowing them into your home

by stating that bigfoot is NOT "provably true"

i am NOT suggesting that bigfoot is "provably false"

imagine that everywhere you go, there is a twenty three foot bubble around your head

this bubble is a smoky gray so you can see through it, but only if you focus

there are representations of the things that are important to you personally inside the bubble

like your home, your close family members, your job, your personal possessions etcetera

the stuff inside your bubble is your ONTOLOGY

sure, you "know of" "other things" "outside" your bubble, but all the critical and interesting stuff is INSIDE

now, every once in a while

someone who is already inside your bubble, proposes that you ADD SOMETHING to your ONTOLOGY

now, you can't just go adding everything you see and hear, because you'd get all cluttered up in a hurry and you'd have trouble organizing things

so there must be some criteria

either conscious, or sub-conscious

some criteria that must be met, BEFORE you add something to your personal ONTOLOGY BUBBLE

for me, that bar is set at "fact"

bigfoot does not clear that bar

BIGFOOT IS NOT A FACT

(IFF) AT SOME POINT, BIGFOOT BECOMES EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE (THEN) BIGFOOT WILL THEN AND ONLY THEN BE CONSIDERED A FACT

I do not believe.

One either knows or hypothesises.

Except you never provided evidence either.

You played the exact same game as I did.

not necessarily the "negation" of fact

BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT

BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION

AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY

but the reasonable "lack of acceptance" of a proposed and not logically impossible "fact"

hold on a second,

can we agree that there is an important difference between FACT and FICTION ?

let's use this epistemological model,

https://youtu.be/m92yvNscIAo

BIGFOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS FACT

BIGFOOT CANNOT PROVIDE EMPIRICAL DEMONSTRATION

AND IS NOT LOGICALLY NECESSARY

(pro tip: you can counter this by providing your personally preferred definitions of "bigfoot" and or "fact")

You're talking about The Maury Povich Show, right?

for example.

if i tell you that x = 343.231

this may or may not be true

and you are not expected to believe me

and you are not expected to DISprove my claim

it is very clearly my burden (as the one making the positive claim)

to show proof

furthermore,

your failure to accept x = 343.231 (on my word alone)

does not, in and of itself

constitute a "counter-claim"

you are not calling me "a liar" simply by not accepting my claim prima facie

and you are not de facto claiming that x != 343.231

BECAUSE FACTS MUST BE EMPIRICALLY DEMONSTRABLE AND OR LOGICALLY NECESSARY

I HAVE NO BURDEN-OF-PROOF

WHEN I STATE THAT BIG-FOOT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A FACT

A GODDO not being proven to be real and existent, is proof enough that an existent GOD is currently not a fact.

Words Words Words.

And therein lies another tale of Universal purpose.

Wherein The GOD Principle is sound.

An actually existent GOD is currently not a fact.

So there is one obvious way for theists  to clear up this issue.

Atheists have nothing to clarify.

Makes no difference what one or a million theists believe.

I am currently content with there not being an existent GOD.

Quite frankly it's more than a tad stupid that GOD itself doesn't clarify the issue once and for all.

Even if it was just a pencil and paper.

What actual critisisms of red pill is there?

yes

Before asking the question "why can't government fix this," we should first be asking ourselves why we think government can fix anything.

What’s your stance on Gun regulations?

Ongoing belief in a hypothesis, where the is no attempt to verify the hypothesis is worthless.

So verify the hypothesis and show me a GOD.

I don't know what's more embarrassing:

the fact that you're an adult who  believes in mythological creatures

or the fact that you actually think this is remotely analogous to anything I talked about in the OP.  

Are you old enough to remember Al Gore's concession speech and him presiding over the Senate certification of his own loss? 

Oh no! Maybe you should go take it up with the tooth fairy. 

If the entire voting process is a predetermined and rigged sham, then #1Donald Trump's victory was also a rigged sham so he was not a genuine victor and has no business declaring himself as such in 2016 or otherwise

#2 it makes no sense for Donald and co. to run for office (again) and beg people to show up and vote since they're telling people their votes don't matter. If you accept these logical conclusions then you accept that trumptards are being nonsensical in their positions.

I don't understand why you felt the need tp respond with such pathetically desperate and ridiculously far off whataboutism  rather than your usual regurgitations about the illegitimacy of government or immorality of voting generally.

I never said Democrats don't engage in political nonsense;

I mean I know denying election results is nothing new; it happens in third world countries all the time. What I'm asking is what if U.S. voters continue to legitimize or simply ignore and disregard the nonexistent claims of fraud though? Are we watering down the accusation to the point where it means nothing, and if so couldn't that be dangerous? 

Again if voting doesn't matter it begs the question of why politicians prostitute themselves for campaign donations, why they gerrymander like crazy and why they try to make it less convenient for certain people to vote.

It begs the question of why anyone gets summoned to jury duty among lots of other questions (many of which I outlined in the OP) that your false equivalences don't come anywhere close to answering.

You'd think that arguments from partisan hacks would be easy to discredit, but yet here you are desperately reaching to convince yourself that speculating or  pouting over Jeb Bush for a few weeks (conveniently ignoring all of the absolutely legitimate issues with unclear and miscast ballots) is somehow the same as insisting thousands of people at every level of government and beyond conspired  to rig an election and/or stage school shootings + terrorist events because of a deep state run by nefarious reptiles and Jews.  Tsk tsk. 

Lol. The title of the thread is called "Open Your Eyes" because I'm mocking conspiracy theorists who use the term. That's why it's in quotes. Obviously. 

You are proof that theistic hypotheses are.

Proof enough for me any way.

Are there any normal people on this site or just Wack jobs?

Because we all do, all of the time.

It's the basis of a system of communication.

Verified by a collective agreement in relation to factual knowledge.

Belief is an imaginative hypothesis not founded on the basis of factual knowledge.

Nonetheless, it is a fact that theistic hypotheses are.

don't forget katherine harris

My claim does not assume the BOP. 3RURAL made the original claim that blacks inhabited Sumeria

Belief and fact are antonyms.

Fact is verified data, belief is unverified data.

A fact is not dependant upon belief.

All within the limits of certainty relative to our own physiological limitations of understanding.

Notwithstanding the variability of language and interpretation thereof.

Next to your bizarro claims about Lucifer

that was hands dow n the dumbest post you've ever made.

Complaining about how politicians "split the vote" between members of their party, or lamenting a court decision about a single state's role in re-counting votes (many of which could not be interpreted or were mis-cast due to the "butterfly ballot") is not remotely analogous to lies about how the entire voting process AND the entire judicial system as a whole is a predetermined, rigged sham. 

Lamenting that Bernie ran against Hillary or Liberman against Kerry  is not anywhere near the same thing as amplifying and perpetuating bullshit and uncorroborated stories about stolen ballots, rigged voting machines and deep state conspiracies that use fake judges and crisis actors to conspire against candidates and fabricate school shootings so the lizard people feds can steal your guns.

I get that you don't like government

but it doesn't excuse such bad false equivalences. 

Yes. Everyone makes mistakes. I discarded my service ribbon.

At some point one has to conclude that there is such a thing as common sense.

Though common sense is obviously a variable concept in itself.

As for belief....How you wish to interpret it, is your choice...Semantics.

My interpretation is simple.....Acceptance without fact.

So based upon previous knowledge, one might suggest that they believe the 47 bus will arrive in approximately 10 minutes. But one has no way of knowing the 47 bus will actually arrive, until the bus arrives.

Same applies to the GOD bus.

Though, previous evidence for the GOD bus is hypothetical,

Oh...And I keeping asking you to show me GOD.

So show me GOD and I will add it to my list of certainties.

Until then, belief is worthless.

I'm a veteran, and I don't support tyranny.

Noticed that the two people arguing for gun control are ex-military with guns, who if ordered by the government to kill citizens they would obviously do so and want to be able to do it without citizens firing back.