By having the child, it is well-known that the child will eventually have to find a way to survive. Having the child, means knowing that the child will have to work to survive. Thus, having a child is forcing the child to eventually have to work to survive. — schopenhauer1

I don't think so. It's pretty basic that by having a child, that child is going to have to find a way to maintain its survival in a social setting- aka work. It is not like it is so far removed- it is very much wrapped into what it means for the child to live its life out. — schopenhauer1

By having people, how is that not forcing them to work de facto? I mean sure, they can always go against their instincts to live, especially when enculturated for a lifetime in a social setting, but that's not going to happen for the majority except the practically non-existent suicidal hermit-ascetic. — schopenhauer1

How is making others work good in and of itself other than appeal to some arbitrary divine command theory? It's only good in a hypothetical imperative. — schopenhauer1

Thus antinatalism prevents people from having to work. No need for need if there is no one to need. — schopenhauer1

Whatevs. I'm not even going to discuss this red herring. — Sapientia

It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia

It's unfalsifiable, so it's unscientific. — Sapientia

That it was a mystical experience. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost. And, being of the spiritual realm, it would leave no physical trace behind. — Sapientia

Bertrand Russell — Wikipedia

Something irrelevant that I've never denied. Good one. What exactly do you think that you can conclude from that?

Can you do any better? — Sapientia

Not true. He's considered a prophet in religions other than Christianity. — Sapientia

Muhammad. — Sapientia

Islam without Muhammad? — Sapientia

Buddhism without Buddha? — Sapientia

The Resurrection is not a historical event! >:O — Sapientia

f you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal — Sapientia

This makes no sense. A materialist is someone who believes that only matter and physical forces exist, which rules out the existence of God, angels, demons, souls, substantial forms, Platonic Ideas, etc. Transubstantiation requires the existence of God at the very least. Therefore, one cannot be a materialist and believe in transubstantiation. — Thorongil

1. Christianity isn't that unique. It has features in common with Judaism and Islam, in particular. — Sapientia

3. No, it isn't. It's the complete opposite. It's controversial, and there have been wars over how it ought to be interpreted. — Sapientia

4. Such as...? — Sapientia

It's not so much a lack of intellect for these type of people, but an excess of emotion. — Sapientia

So they become the flesh and blood, but not in any perceptible or substantial meaning of the word "become" — ProbablyTrue

If you're saying that transubstantiation is not physical in some sense, where the bread and wine actually become Jesus' flesh and blood, then what is the claim? — ProbablyTrue

Do you disagree with this? — ProbablyTrue

"The only possible meaning is that the bread and wine at the consecration become Christ's actual body and blood. Evidently Paul believed that the words Christ had said at the Last Supper, "This is my Body," meant that really and physically the bread is his body. In fact Christ was not merely saying that the bread was his body; he was decreeing that it should be so and that it is so." — ProbablyTrue

So we're on what, delusion? Or new paradigm? — Baden

That verse is not about the Eucharist, and within the context of these two verses is clearly symbolic/spiritual. — ProbablyTrue

I'm sure they'd find the same things in the minds of Muslims or Mormons. — ProbablyTrue

Any thoughts on the actual quotations from the Bible or do you want to stick with early church leaders? — ProbablyTrue

Jesus first repeated what he said, then summarized: "‘I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

His listeners were stupefied because now they understood Jesus literally—and correctly. He again repeated his words, but with even greater emphasis, and introduced the statement about drinking his blood: "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him" — John 6:51-56

Can you expound on this? — ProbablyTrue

materialism — Thorongil

materialists — Noble Dust

No Catholic has ever experienced transubstantiation. — Akanthinos

For a Catholic it isn't symbolic either (according to the Cathechism anyway). The substance of the flesh and blood of Christ is truly there, and there is truly nothing left of the bread and wine except for everything that makes us feel about it that it is bread and wine. — Akanthinos

On what basis do you make this improbable claim? — Bitter Crank

So the Catholic Church asserts something that cannot possibly be verified in any way, but because it's religious doctrine, we should give it some credence? That seems absurd. — ProbablyTrue

Transubstantiation is not at all explicit in the text itself. Many, if not most, of the early church writers did not see the breaking of bread and drinking of wine as anything other than symbolic. Protestants also do not believe in transubstantiation. — ProbablyTrue

No, that's a deflection. I don't expect miracles. Why should I humour you and entertain the idea? I expect results based on facts, not on wild imagination. — Sapientia

And you're wrong that there would be no physical change. We're constantly changing physically from one moment to the next. This is covered by science, e.g. physiology and particle physics. Is this supposed transubstantiation that is thought to occur after receiving the Eucharist likewise covered by science? — Sapientia

No, because it's just a myth, taken up on faith. It's not falsifiable and is therefore unscientific. — Sapientia

The doctrine is unscientific. That's why it's the doctrine vs. science. — Sapientia

Just because science cannot apply, you don't need to recklessly abandon critical thinking. — Sapientia

If you don't believe in ghosts or celestial teapots, then why transubstantiation? Why the double standard? Why the special pleading? — Sapientia

You are embracing such nonsense with open arms, whilst I am not letting my guard down. — Sapientia

Okay, then simply swap "The Bible" for whatever doctrine you were referring to. That's a nonresponse. — Sapientia

I think quite the opposite. Many elements of adult society are dangerous for youth. As I said in my reply to TimeLine above the need to protect outweighs the advantages of greater autonomy at a younger age. What do you think? — TheMadFool

Maturity requires experience and with modern media children have access to, literally, billions of second-hand experience of others. Don't you think this affects the maturing process of minds? For instance a 12 year old in New York is definitely more mentally advanced than a 12 year old Ghanian villager. — TheMadFool

This is such an accurate perspective on those investing in Cryptocurrency. Which is why I asked what the USA dollar was backed by because it USED to be backed by Gold bullion but that is no longer the case and as you suggest, we can keep printing it as we need it but eventually it will become worthless on the world stage. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I believe the doctrine because my own understanding and study of religion, combined with understanding of human anthropology and my own experiences (mystical or otherwise) reveal that (1) Christianity is unique amongst the world's religions, (2) mystical experiences of the kind the doctrine speaks about do happen to people, (3) the meaning of the doctrine is transparent, clear and understandable, and (4) transubstantiation fits into the larger scheme of things predicated by other things I know.

So those are my personal reasons for believing. And there probably are more. Now I don't doubt that you'll have further arguments with each one of those, since you are set to try to disprove what I say, not to consider it. That's okay, but realise that I do have reasons for believing it, even if you don't share them. — Agustino

The masses you appeal to are simply wrong. — Sapientia

They aren't intelligent enough to make sense of these experiences, or they're in denial, so they jump to conclusions and believe what they want to believe. — Sapientia

Yeah, but I have a bulletproof plan. I'll only buy into the currencies that increase in value. — Michael

I don't know what part of the left you're talking about, but it is obvious to me that most who belong on said part of the political spectrum have a seething antipathy for multinational corporations, big banks, Wall Street, "the 1%," and the rich in general. To support such things and their subsidization by the state is to be a corporatist, not a capitalist, but the left fails to distinguish between the two. — Thorongil

You need to give your real-world identification to the exchanges in order to open an account. — fishfry

I tried to explain the hurtles facing bitcoin (authentication times, power consumption, possible unforeseen digital vulnerabilities) and the realities of currency (especially what makes the American dollar so secure/the global reserve currency) but nothing would land and he just kept coming back to the idea that every other form of currency is a bull-shit lie put on by corrupt governments and banks. — VagabondSpectre

With this kind of widespread radical distrust of government and radical faith in bitcoin, ironically, it might actually be able to get that high one day. (that would mean all 21 million bitcoins once they're mined, would be worth around 1 trillion dollars altogether). — VagabondSpectre

The left strawmans capitalism, confusing it with corporatism — Thorongil

Thanks for your vacuous contributions! :-d — Noble Dust

Give me a break. (Oh, look, a metaphor within the context of common usage! Must be vacuous.) — Noble Dust

They are two different ways of describing the very same event. — Metaphysician Undercover

One cannot be the cause, and the other the effect, if they are the very same thing. — Metaphysician Undercover

According to Newton's first law, if a thing has being, there are no other efficient causes required to maintain that being. — Metaphysician Undercover

inertia — Metaphysician Undercover

Do you know what the word "appear" means? To be visible. — Metaphysician Undercover

You still have done nothing to support this illogical claim that the efficient cause is simultaneous with the effect. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well, you need to specify what you mean by "specify", right? :-} But in all seriousness, I stated at the beginning that it was a poetic concept; that should make clear what "know" means in that context. — Noble Dust

The higher form would look down on us as we look down on the bird. Then the concept of beauty comes in, which I've gone into at length. — Noble Dust

There is a sense in which both bird and man may not know of their (full) beauty - and that's in-so-far as they are unaware of how they fit into the larger picture. If you are unaware of the greater purpose, then you may not see why X Y Z happened the way they did. That's also why man's greatest happiness is knowing God.

"But as for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive." Genesis 50:20. — Agustino

It's OK, I won't do that. — Michael

I'm talking about the real world. — Sapientia

There's no evidence, besides hearsay, that that has ever happened, so it is perfectly reasonable to question why you think that it happens. — Sapientia

Yeah, that's not an example of transubstantiation. That's just feeling horny over some girl. That's an ordinary, common place occurrence, which can be explained. That's not an extraordinary and inexplicable event which would defy all current scientific knowledge. The two aren't comparable. — Sapientia

Because science has proven itself to be considerably more reliable. Why shouldn't you have confidence in science over your doctrine? — Sapientia

I have confidence in science because it has a great track record. — Sapientia

Its predictions have turned out correct, or have at least been of use and set us on the right track, ever adding to our knowledge about the world. — Sapientia

No, I think that it's you who is failing to get it. For example, a prominent failure on your part is your reoccurring error of mistaking my focus on external errors (something that the Bible gets wrong about the external world) to be about internal errors (something that contradicts the Bible's own message). I have tried to clarify this for you, but based on your replies, it seems that you still aren't getting it. You just keep repeating that the doctrine says this and does not say that, as if that matters. — Sapientia