Deconstruction of false spirituality is what led me to the one true Faith and profession of belief in Jesus Christ.

Yeah, but I'm done talking to someone who is so intellectually dishonest and manipulative.

No, it does not claim ultimate and final authority. Scripture did not even exist for the first 4 centuries of the Church's existence. Scripture is PART of Sacred Tradition, not the other way around.

No Biblical contradiction exists. You look for scientific argumentation: none exists. Every detail about the Faith is in perfect harmony with whatever truth about the universe exists that we would find from scientific inquiry.

Strawman after strawman. Adios.

First, the Bible is not the sole rule of Faith for Christians. It shouldn't be. Christians who believe that it is are in error.

Secondly, the Bible is not a scientific book. Not that it is opposed to science, but that it is not concerned with science. That is not the POINT of Scripture.

Yes, it makes sense that a heretical and schismatic group of Christians led another unfortunate soul away from God. Protestants are fond of doing that, sadly.

God bless you, brother.

I didn't address your question because it's not a real question.

Sounds like you might be a sociopath if you're so unwilling to engage with your peers that you willfully misrepresent me so egregiously that you accuse me of doing something that I've disavowed several times.

Strawman. This presupposes that every action done by a religious person is guided by a scrupulous compulsion to follow some mandatory guideline, enforced primarily or exclusively under fear. This is false.

Your limited understanding of the single hardest book ever written to comprehend doesn't make your point more valid.

Let's presume that you're right. It is an absolutely licit position to hold that Adam & Eve were the first ENSOULED humans in a long line of hominids going through the process of evolution. Changes quite literally nothing about the timeline.

This is such a weak argument, much like when people protest the existence of God on the basis of bad things happening in the world.

Acting in such a way that you are actively pursuing your own salvation, the salvation of your neighbors, and the furthering of the Kingdom of God on earth is inherently better than not doing so.

Every action done by every person all day long is done with a mind for potential reward or potential punishment. It is quite literally unavoidable, down to the most secular of cultures.

Not one person in this entire thread has mentiomed humanity being 6,000 years old one single time. This is the definition of a strawman.

Being unable to read the soul of another person has no bearing on what that person's motivations may or may not be. I am very clearly not saying that a person who is nominally Catholic but acts only out of self interest and who is apathetic to the wants and needs of other is more virtuous than an atheist on the basis of them being nominally religious.

No, not all or even most religions are "children" of God. There is one true Faith on the face of the planet.

Finally, you're factually wrong in that last paragraph. The percentage of wars caused by religion is something around like 5%, if I remember correctly. The amount of priests who commit these crimes is around 3%, which is the lowest percentage of any group on the planet, being significantly lower than public school teachers, sitting at around 7-8% of a SIGNIFICANTLY larger number of people. In 2018, there were THIRTY cases against the Church in America, and only 8 were even substantiated in a court of law. Whereas in public school, there were millions. Of course even 8 is too high, but it is literally the lowest rate of sexual abuse on the face of the earth.

Finally, the "mass graves" thing is a myth and has been debunked time and time again. The residential schools were run primarily by protestant churches and the Canadian government and you'll find that the Catholic-run schools were regularly requesting aid because they lacked the means to take care of a populace of children who were getting ravaged by deadly diseases. The children were then buried in individual graves all marked with crosses.

Text does not necessarily indicate a global flood. One which covers only the known world for the author would suffice.

Yep, the theory of evolution is fully compatible with the doctrine of our first parents. Adam and Eve were the first ENSOULED humans, not necessarily the literal first two hominids to ever exist on the face of the earth.

Maybe I'd be able to see how silly that is if I actually said that but being that I didn't, I don't.

It's not being religious that makes one virtuous. Being a part of a false faith does not make one virtuous. Being nominally religious doesn't make one virtuous. Man, even being a part of the one true Church doesn't inherently make one virtuous.

No, because I didn't say that humans are inherently fully conscious of the full breadth and width of objective morality and what that actually entails.

No, there's really not any evidence pointing against either of those things. The Great Flood was not a worldwide event. But it did happen.

Adam & Eve being the first humans does not go against the theory of evolution.

That's a great question and one that I've been thinking about on and off for some time now.

I think that a question needs to be asked first: if a Catholic and an atheist both do the exact same action, say, feeding and clothing a homeless man, is one action more or less moral than another? I've found that there's different levels to this. On one hand, the morality of the action done by both parties has the same intrinsic moral weight: a homeless man was fed and clothed. This is objectively good.

Then we have to turn to motivation. I would argue that doing this out of a desire to love thy neighbor as prescribed by Christ and, in doing so, try to imitate the perfection of God while seeking the highest possible good (in salvation) that the action holds a higher moral weight than the atheist doing the same action.

Some atheists would disagree and insist that the situation is reversed and that the religious person's actions would have less weight since they're acting out of obligation and thus are less sincere, but I find this assertion to be baseless and out of touch with reality. No truly religious person is doing good deeds that they don't want to do solely because of selfish reasons. It just doesn't happen amongst devout people.

All of that is to say that, yes, I think truly religious people (and specifically those who are part of Christ's Mystical Body on earth) are fundamentally more moral than an atheist due to the fact that a religious person's aim is the highest possible good: the salvation of their own souls firstly and then the salvation of their neighbours.

Man has an indelible moral character stamped on his conscience by the Creator - this much is true. Man does indeed have an inherent moral sense. That said, religion, and particularly the one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, God Incarnate, is absolutely necessary to fully understand and express the depths of morality, especially moral standards which far outweigh mere human conceptions of morality.