Whoever possesses the strongest gun in a room has the legitimate right to impose his truth on all ones in his room — KerimF

lmao only you, muslims and WWII fascists think so. I have no problem discussing with an atheist and I even read hindu scriptures with Shânkara's commentary, sufi poems, etc.

The superiority of a civilization is not measured by its material or even spiritual achievements, however admirable they may be, but by its capacity to absorb and integrate the worldviews and “points of view” of other civilizations without losing its unity and identity, strengthening them. The superiority of the Christian West, in this respect, is not only evident, but overwhelming. The same holds true for the individual. I can study atheism in depth and with complete freedom, but you cannot study any religion or even miracle facts without filter and censorship, because if you do, most likely you would be very afraid in starting to think that exists someone who judges us for what we done in life.

There is no way to understand anything about Christianity without paying attention to miracles, on which the whole meaning of doctrine depends. You have no way of confirming or denying the truth of evangelical miracles, but Jesus promised that He would continue to work miracles through the centuries, and, strictly speaking, there are no facts of any other kind in the world that exist in such large numbers and that is so well documented, especially today.

The detractors of religion use and abuse this argument that they found in Humboldt (not the explorer and naturalist Alexander, but his philologist brother Wilhelm): Human morality, even the highest and most substantial, is in no way dependent on religion, or necessarily linked to it.

All civilizations were born from original religious outbreaks. There has never been a “secular civilization”. A long time since the foundation of civilizations, nothing prevents some values and symbols from being separated abstractly from their origins and, in practice, becoming relatively independent educational forces.

I say “relatively” because, whatever the case may be, its prestige and ultimately its meaning will remain indebted to the religious tradition and will not survive long when it disappears from the surrounding society.

All “secular morals” are just an excerpt from previous religious moral codes

This cut can be effective for certain groups within a civilization that, in the end, remains religious, but, if this fund is suppressed, the cut is meaningless. The secular Europe’s inability to defend itself against Muslim cultural occupation is the most obvious example.

The present state of affairs in countries that have detached more fully from their Judeo-Christian roots is demonstrating with the utmost evidence that the so-called “lay civilization” never existed and cannot exist.

It lasted only a few decades, it never succeeded in completely eradicating the religion from public life, despite all the repressive devices it used against it, and in the end, its brief existence was only an interface between two religious civilizations: dying Christian Europe and nascent Islamic Europe.

Humboldt’s opinion is based on a double error, or rather, on a convergence of errors that give the impression of confirming themselves as truths. On the one hand, he makes a logical deduction from the general meanings of the terms and, seeing that the generic concept of morality does not imply any reference to God, he applies to the world of facts the conclusion that one thing does not depend on the other.

This is an addiction to abstractism: inferring facts from reasoning instead of reasoning based on facts. On the other hand, however, he observes that around him there are atheistic individuals “of high and substantial morality”, and believes that with this he obtained empirical proof of his deduction.

What he doesn’t even realize is that their morality is only good because their conduct schematically — and externally — coincides with what the principles of religion demand, that is, that the very possibility of good lay conduct was created and sedimented by a long religious tradition whose moral rules, once absorbed in the body of society, began to function more or less automatically.

In short, only the abstract man — or the heir more or less unaware of religious traditions — can have a moral without God. The first is a logical fiction, the second is an appearance that covers the reality of its own origins.

Taking them as realities, and even more so as universal and unconditioned realities, is a primary philosophical error, which shows little ability to analyze the experience.

Many, before having examined just one of these miracle facts, already cling to the idea that one day they will all have a “scientific explanation” — it is understood: materialistic — and it will be proven that they were not miracles at all. Although this expectation has never been fulfilled in relation to any miracle confirmed by the Church, and although the promise of the devastating explanation has repeatedly postponed its fulfillment again and again in each specific case (recently it failed again to “explain” the Holy Shroud of Turin), the fact is that these people continue to trust the promise as if it were a test already carried out, complete and unanswerable. There can be nothing more irrational than this act of faith that takes as a proof a promise of proof and is renewed with every new failed attempt to carry it out. However, the people who practice it believe that, in doing this, they are tremeeendously scientific.

If I had any money, I would pay the luminaries of materialism to study, for as long as they wanted, the miracles of Father Pio, who knew in advance of the sins of others and events in distant lands, (for example he knew whether the son of an anguished mother had been killed in the war) and who healed a blind girl who had no pupils, or those reported by dr. Ricardo Castañon in his videos, who reports the event of a bleeding wafer and who, after taking it for examination by one of the best doctors in the United States, (who is an atheist, and does not know the origin of the sample) he strongly states that it belonged to a patient who died in pain and agony, that in his last moments of life he had difficulty breathing, and that this blood came from the heart, and then give us a “scientific explanation” of each one.

Uh... no. They don't care about knowledge that it is against their preconceived beliefs, and also don't mind censoring. The lack of interest in getting to know miracles, on the part of people who nevertheless express their opinions about Christianity, reveals that these people prefer to know only the edges of the subject of which they speak, for fear of getting too close to the center and being singed. The fact that the forum has philosophy in its name is a comic pretension and inversion.

But such question may need the start of its own thread. — KerimF

The neo-atheist mods would ban the thread. Not worth discussing here.

Christ's life, death, passion and resurrection is a fact. His resurrection alone had more witnesses than Caesar's murder. Of course, for those who have no faith, not all the miracles in the world will convince.