Evolution of what?

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

There are no such thing as “True Catholicism”, a

My wife’s religion is True Catholicism.

She was born right next to the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.

Not even the Pope can say that. (Although the current Pope was born closer to to the center of the world than any Pope in history.

I don’t care what the Inquisitionists or even their modern day supporters think.

You are wrong.
True Catholicism is about Welcoming the Stranger.

Your version is Idolatry.

 

[gnostic]

Why do some atheists claim that magic is useless?

You know magic can be useful, right?

Atheists attack brujeria and magic all the time.

Have you seriously never seen it?

Atheists have attacked my wife just because she considers herself a bruja.

It’s the New Inquisitionism.

She’s even been accused of cannibalism by new white atheist types.

Inquisitions were either state-sanctioned (by Spain rulers) or papal-sanctioned (hence the Popes)…meaning the people who carried out the inquisitions, have official ”authorities” to take measures, such as prosecutions, coerced conversions, tortures and executions.

Only Christians and Muslims have history forcibly of converted people to their respective faiths.

 

[gnostic]

My wife’s religion is True Catholicism.

She was born right next to the center of the world, the Axis Mundi, where heaven meets earth and hell.

Not even the Pope can say that.

I don’t care what the Inquisitionists or even their modern day supporters think.

You are wrong.
True Catholicism is about Welcoming the Stranger.

Your version is Idolatry.

True Catholicism haven’t been around since the 3rd century CE.

 

[gnostic]

I don’t care what the Inquisitionists or even their modern day supporters think.

of course, you don’t care.

you made it very clear that about anyone else views, except your own.

You are ignoring the fact that the Spanish Inquisition by the late 15th century Spanish monarch (Ferdinand something…don’t remember if he was 2nd or 3rd by that name), who happened to be Catholic, not atheist.

You attempting to rewrite church history and Spanish history, just show how dishonest you are with your revisionist history.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Inquisitions were either state-sanctioned (by Spain rulers) or papal-sanctioned (hence the Popes)…meaning the people who carried out the inquisitions, have official ”authorities” to take measures, such as prosecutions, coerced conversions, tortures and executions.

Only Christians and Muslims have history forcibly of converted people to their respective faiths.

You are privileging western cultures over my wife’s non-western culture.

I choose to do the opposite.

Is it possible that my wife’s culture is the one who got Catholicism right, and not your western culture?

All we are doing here is choosing sides.

Why do you chose the side of western culture, when most of western culture in the 21st century has basically acknowledged that my wife’s culture was right all along?

Why are you still holding out?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

of course, you don’t care.

you made it very clear that about anyone else views, except your own.

You are ignoring the fact that the Spanish Inquisition by the late 15th century Spanish monarch (Ferdinand something…don’t remember if he was 2nd or 3rd by that name), who happened to be Catholic, not atheist.

You attempting to rewrite church history and Spanish history, just show how dishonest you are with your revisionist history.

You are the one attempting to rewrite history to cancel Black cultures and Black religions, from your own cultural perspective of western superiority.

What if it is that Black culture that is superior, instead?

You seem to close your mind to that possibility.

Because the notion of Black superiority doesn’t fit in with your own western perspective.

Why do you reject it?

You didn’t even mention it as an aspect of Catholicism. Why not?

Is your rejection cultural?

Do you believe in evolution?

Does culture evolve?

Does religion evolve?

Did God make human cultures, or did human cultures make God?

If it is the latter, as I believe as an atheist, then we are both just two atheists choosing sides.

I’m just going it openly. And the more entrenched you become, the more entrenched I become.

 

[gnostic]

You are privileging western cultures over my wife’s non-western culture.

then you need to understand that I have Asian background, and people don’t consider me to be white.

and I am not putting one culture on podium over other cultures. What I see is you, trying to rewrite history of the Spanish Inquisition, with your nonsensical version.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

then you need to understand that I have Asian background, and people don’t consider me to be white.

and I am not putting one culture on podium over other cultures. What I see is you, trying to rewrite history of the Spanish Inquisition, with your nonsensical version.

Why does your culture choose western culture over African culture here in America?

And why do you pretend it is not a choice?

Who got it right, and who got it wrong?

Your answer to that will tell me a lot about your culture.

HINT: This is the 21st century, and nobody in their right minds believes today that western cultures got it right.

Catholicism is fundamentally about Welcoming the Stranger, and if you want to change that, you need to go back centuries in history and refight a whole slew of holy wars.

Or do you imagine this was settled by keyboard warriors?

Remember, we are talking about issues that were settled centuries ago, but which some are attempting to re-ignite.

 

[gnostic]

Why does your culture choose western culture over African culture here in America?

And why do you pretend it is not a choice?

Who got it right, and who got it wrong?

Your answer to that will tell me a lot about your culture.

HINT: This is the 21st century, and nobody in their right minds believes today that western cultures got it right.

Catholicism is fundamentally about Welcoming the Stranger, and if you want to change that, you need to go back centuries in history and relight a whole slew of holy wars.

Or do you imagine this was settled by keyboard warriors?

Again, what does that have to do with @Subduction Zone .

you are the who used this Spanish Inquisition, without even realising this wasn’t even the 1st inquisition.

one of them was started in the late 12th century (1184), sanctioned by the then pope - the Episcopal Inquisition. Then around 1230, the Papal Inquisition.

you are ignoring the actual history of Catholicism with your revisionist version.

 

[McBell]

Unlike you, I don’t seek to define the religions of others for them.

Really?
So what exactly is a "gundamentalist"?

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Again, what does that have to do with @Subduction Zone .

you are the who used this Spanish Inquisition, without even realising this wasn’t even the 1st inquisition.

one of them was started in the late 12th century (1184), sanctioned by the then pope - the Episcopal Inquisition. Then around 1230, the Papal Inquisition.

you are ignoring the actual history of Catholicism with your revisionist version.

Why do you keep insisting that us atheists have our own version?

I’m choosing the version of my wife’s culture.

You’re choosing the version of those who kidnapped her ancestors and enslaved them.

We’re both just choosing sides in this war.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

Really?

Stop trolling.

 

[McBell]

Stop trolling.

What is a "gundamentalist"?

You forgot to address that part of the post you quoted.

 

[Banach-Tarski Paradox]

What is a "gundamentalist"?

You forgot to address that part of the post you quoted.

Gundamentalism is the reason that my wife was afraid to even step foot outside of our house during election week of 2016.

It was the bloodiest election in Iowa history.

Had we not already voted absentee, we would not have been able to vote, due to gundamentalism.

Gundamentalusm is all about disenfranchisement.

And ignoring the experiences and fears of Women.

The forum thugs think it is funny.

That in itself says a lot about thuggery.

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

The spoken languages and written languages are learned processes, are matters of linguistics and philology, not the studies of theory of Evolution.

Existing parallels to Sumerian civilisation throughout the 3rd millennium BCE, was the Egyptian language, west of Sumer, and in the east, were the Indus Valley Civilisation (IVC) in South Asia. But there were hundreds of different cultures with their own distinct spoken languages that we don’t know about, because they were illiterate societies.

You are only focusing on “civilisations”, but outside of Sumer, of Egypt and of IVC, there were hundreds, possibly even thousands of different cultures, each ones with their own spoken languages. There were already Semitic-speaking people dwelling among the Sumerians, like the Akkadians and the Amorites during the 3rd millennium BCE. So when Sargon of Akkad (founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire) conquered Sumerian cities during the 24th century, they have adopted some of Sumerian customs, including Sumerian cuneiform writing.

The Sumerians were also aware of the language spoken by the Elamites, who dwelled in western Iran. like the Akkadians, the Elamites didn't have their own writing system, so they too eventually adopted cuneiform.

The Helladic people of the Aegean civilisation (which included Crete and mainland Greece), have their own languages during much of the 3rd millennium BCE, but they didn’t have their own writing systems, until the 2nd millennium BCE, eg Linear A, Linear B.

At no time, were there ever global flood or the Tower of Babel, where the entire world spoke only one language…the Tower of Babel is a myth.

You have one-sided view of history…but Genesis isn’t a document of history.

While it is true genesis is not a document of history, it is also true whatever written in document of genesis also matches with the life and times of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. If we look with the place these persons in the Indus Valley civilizations. The basic reason why genesis is not considered history is because we do not find supporting archaeological and geographical evidences in West Asia but there is two ways to solve this, one is to say that genesis is not history and another is to look at another place and I believe the second alternative is the correct one. I have published a paper in International Journal of Religion on the location of the Garden of Eden in the Indus Valley which I am attaching and I am happy to receive your comment on this.

 

[shunyadragon]

While it is true genesis is not a document of history, it is also true whatever written in document of genesis also matches with the life and times of Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses. If we look with the place these persons in the Indus Valley civilizations. The basic reason why genesis is not considered history is because we do not find supporting archaeological and geographical evidences in West Asia but there is two ways to solve this, one is to say that genesis is not history and another is to look at another place and I believe the second alternative is the correct one. I have published a paper in International Journal of Religion on the location of the Garden of Eden in the Indus Valley which I am attaching and I am happy to receive your comment on this.

One ancient mythology does not justify another ancient mythology.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are privileging western cultures over my wife’s non-western culture.

I choose to do the opposite.

Is it possible that my wife’s culture is the one who got Catholicism right, and not your western culture?

All we are doing here is choosing sides.

Why do you chose the side of western culture, when most of western culture in the 21st century has basically acknowledged that my wife’s culture was right all along?

Why are you still holding out?

Holding out for what? or which one of many?

I neither accept any particular ancient tribal culture or Western tribal alternative. Ancient cultures reflect the very fallible human beliefs of that culture only. The modern alternatives are very fallible human alternatives to justify their own beliefs.

There are tens of thousands of conflicting claims of True Catholicism.

Why would I accept any of the many conflicting alternatives when each claims they are the One only One True Catholic (Universal)?

 

[Bharat Jhunjhunwala]

One ancient mythology does not justify another ancient mythology.

I agreed that one ancient mythology does not justify another ancient mythology, but in this case the particular mythology of the Bible matches with the geographical and archaeological evidences from the Indus Valley. For example, the four rivers of Eden are found at Pushkar in Rajasthan. The evidence of blood is found at Jalore in Rajasthan. Therefore, instead of dismissing it as a mythology and closing the chapter there, we must look at the possible places where this mythology may have taken place.

 

[ChieftheCef]

Many evolutionists are so obsessed with the idea of a chain of related animals that they forget that the environment around them must have evolved along with or faster than these animals' supposed biological evolution, or else they would not have survived in a hostile environment like the one that suggests a universe in formation.

Why do evolutionists limit their evolutionary theory only to animals, and forget about the environment that also had to be transformed to welcome them upon their "evolutionary" arrival?

For example: when did the water appear in the evolution of the animals?

Geology believes that it takes large scale, gradual changes to the environment, it's just not as talked about as I or presumably you would like.

From Gemini

"Yes, geology heavily relies on the concept of gradual change over vast stretches of time to explain how the environment evolved into what we see today. This principle is called uniformitarianism, proposed by James Hutton in the 18th century. It suggests that the geological processes we witness today, like erosion, plate tectonics, and sedimentation, have been acting for millions and billions of years, slowly shaping the Earth's features."

 

[ChieftheCef]

I agreed that one ancient mythology does not justify another ancient mythology, but in this case the particular mythology of the Bible matches with the geographical and archaeological evidences from the Indus Valley. For example, the four rivers of Eden are found at Pushkar in Rajasthan. The evidence of blood is found at Jalore in Rajasthan. Therefore, instead of dismissing it as a mythology and closing the chapter there, we must look at the possible places where this mythology may have taken place.

He believes he found Eden in a totally different place. This does not make the Bible stories true however. They and their over all sentiment is demonstratably proven false with science.