Catholicism

I would again ask that you try to refrain from bringing in aspects of other debates as the voting public doesn't have any idea what they mean or what their context is. Nonetheless, I take issue with nearly everything you said there. "People say there should be no religion, because there is no God." I think there are many, many reasons there should be no religion, with the unlikelihood of God's existence being just one. "These events shows that only such thing as a God could do these things." You provided two "events" that "show that only such a thing as God" exists. Eucharist in Buenos Aires in 1996 - Your source for this is a Christian website. "It is an ideal tool of evangelization...We use it as a prayer book...May the magazine become a landmark of the Universal Church in the East." - I don't think it's valid to use a Christian newsletter, the basis of which presupposes a Christian God exists, to prove that it does. It seems nearly all accounts of this event are maintained by such publications (e.g. TheDivineMercy.org, ChurchMilitant.com, CatholicJournal.us, VisionOfJesusChrist.com). In order to be a valid piece of evidence, I think Pro should be required to provide at least a few scholarly articles. Water to wine - If Pro can't find an article about it, I think it's safe to say it's not true. Citing "an old documentary (Pro) watched" is in no way valid evidence. As the burden of proof is on Pro, I should not have to "try to find it on YouTube." However, I did look on YouTube for over an hour and could not find any such story containing scientific proof of the discovery of a substance which had a "chemical composition perfectly resemble(ing) water." All that aside, let's assume Pro is able to dig up scientific sources confirming your point. I think it is your next sentence that makes the most egregious deduction. "If there is a God, then Catholicism and all other religions are true as there is in fact a God."Among the most glaring errors with belief in religion is the fact that in no way, shape, or form can all of the religions be true. Rather, for the most part, only one can be. I have read the Old Testament, New Testament, and Qu'ran in addition to studying the doctrines of Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism and can personally attest to the fact that there are stark incompatibilities that draw attention to the inherent conflict between most religions and, thus, the complete dismantling of this very important point of yours. For example: Muslims, Jews, and Christians all claim Jerusalem as their holy land. This is such a point of contention that wars have been fought and countless people have died over this clash. Surely it would not be the case if " Catholicism and all other religions are true." The Qu'ran states that Jesus was not crucified, while that is a huge component of the New Testament Certain Islamic sects, particular Sunni Muslims, especially hose who subscribe to Wahhabism are of the belief that it is permissible to wage jihad by killing anyone who does not convert to Islam. They are also okay with capturing and raping women who are not Muslims and making them their milk al-yamin, or sex slaves. These two actions aren't just permissible they are seen as praiseworthy. On the other hand, in many religions (as well as secular philosophies), murder and rape are seen as wrong, immoral, and evil. Also, in the Mesoamerican religion of the Aztecs, human sacrifice was thought to be a good, as death and sacrifice was believed to be necessary to keep the world in existence. The sacrifices would come from those who were captured during war, as well as from the children of the native population. These people would be sacrificed and killed against their will, yet the Aztec priests saw this as a good, and saw this as the right thing to do. In contrast, most religions and secular philosophies see child sacrifice and the ill treatment of war criminals as wrong and immoral. Members of the Westboro Baptist Church believe that God hates certain groups of people, and desires their death. However, this is contradictory to what other Christian religions believe; that is, that the Abrahamic God is love itself, and that God loves everyone despite how people choose to live their life of their own free will In Islam and Judaism, Jesus Christ was not a God nor divine in any way. He was just a prophet. In Christianity, on the other hand, he has divine aspects. Christians believe that accepting Jesus is the only way to heaven. Muslims believe that accepting Allah is the only way to heaven. They are inherently different Gods who command different ways of being and conducting oneself. Many religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Baha'i Faith, and Sihkism, are purely monotheistic. In fact, they admonish those who believe in any other God. On the other hand, many religions, including Hinduism, Mahayana, Confucianism, Taoism, and Shinto, are purely polytheistic. Islam and Christianity differ greatly on many of their core beliefs and are incompatible in this sense. Most Catholics think their church is the one True Church. Jehovah's Witnesses consider the Catholic worship of the Trinity as devil worship. At the same time, Protestants regard them as idolaters. I hope this is sufficient. "P.S. Most (like 98.999...% :) agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real person."First, no they don't (see below). Second, people believing in something doesn't mean it's true. The whole of humanity used to believe, with great certainty, that the rest of our solar system revolved around the Earth. It is clear today that this is not true. A great deal of people used to believe the Earth was flat, but now many/most believe it is round. I'd be happy to debate anyone who feels it is flat, but that's neither here nor there. Where is this statistic from? Yet again, Pro seems to be making statements that are nothing more than pure conjecture reflecting their own, unsubstantiated views. Here are is one of many sources that beg to differ: "40% of people doubt Jesus existed." - Steve Cooper. Even if "like 98.999... %" agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, that statistic is not at all relevant to the conversation. Rather, we should look at the percentage of people who believe in the resurrection or divinity of Jesus. See the following real statistics: "43% of the people asked said they did believe in the resurrection - although many did not think it happened as described in the Bible." - BBC "Most adults—not quite six in 10—believe Jesus was God (56%), while about one-quarter say he was only a religious or spiritual leader like Mohammed or the Buddha (26%). The remaining one in six say they aren’t sure whether Jesus was divine (18%)." - Barna "24% believe Bible is literal word of God, the lowest in Gallup's 40-year trend." - Gallup Let's look even further at Bible passages that indicate Jesus was not God: "Why do you call me good? No one is good, except God alone." (Mark 10:18) - Here Jesus emphatically makes a distinction between himself and God. "The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28) - This is another strong statement that makes a distinction between Jesus and God. "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36) - Here Jesus makes a distinction between what he knows and what the Father knows. "By myself, I can do nothing: I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who has sent me." (John 5:30) - Jesus says, “by myself, I can do nothing.” This indicates that Jesus is relying upon his own relationship with God. He is not trying to “please myself” but rather is seeking to “please the one who sent me.” "The Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees the Father doing, because whatever the Father does, the Son does also." (John 5:19) - Jesus declares that he is following a pattern laid down by God. He is expressing obedience to God. "P.S.S. Good luck on the 0.999... = 1 debate."Unwarranted aggressiveness aside, this is not relevant here.I have now gone through all of Pro's most recent arguments and taken them apart, one by one. I stated that there are many reasons other than God's non-existence for people saying there should be no religion I showed that the two "events" cited by Pro were completely invalid as claims based on lack of evidence, among other things I dug into the most glaring error in Pro's argument, showing that even if there was a God, that doesn't mean Catholicism is true and, moreover, there is simply no way that "all other religions are true" I disputed Pro's claim about the percentage of people who agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, first by offering a counterclaim and then by drilling down further to reveal that the particular statistic has no bearing even if it were accurate I drew attention to Pro's unwarranted use of aggression, specifically in a case that bears no relevance to the debate at hand Looking forward to hearing back!