The Church should respect tough questions

[domer76]

Let's get real.

There is a clear reason the word "Spirit" is in spirituality.

Because spirituality has to do with the incorporeal, the immaterial, the transcendent.

In other words, religious concepts that can't be proven by science.

One can feel appreciative or amazed at looking at the night sky or a sunset. But to call it "spiritual" is the worst kind of New Age crystal power nonsense that California hippies might be inclined say.

For someone who complains about religion, you don't seem to know much about the religions of the world, by your own admission. It is surprising that someone would complain about religion, without actually knowing much about the religions of the world. If you are angry at Christianity, that doesn't make you a good spokesperson for Atheism. It makes you a spokesperson for people who don't like Chrisitainty.

Yep. The immaterial. That feeling I get when I ponder the amazing things I see about me. Damn incorporeal, those emotions. Damn immaterial, that sense of awe.

Thanks for that validation of spiritual.

I know enough about the religion that affects us most in this country to know that is based on pure fucking myth. Hocum. Starting with the mythical storm god in the pantheon of gods, to the evolution to the angry and cruel monotheistic one, to the bizarre belief of a virgin birth and a divine man/god that was supposedly resurrected after death. And do not forget that twisted concept of a Trinity that the Christians took about 4 centuries to concoct. You know, that concept that not one fucking Christian can explain?

Fuck, man. Which is MORE spiritual? Being in awe of the immenseness, beauty and wonder of the universe or that your eternal life depends on your belief in the resurrection myth?

 

[Yakuda]

Where are you getting this idea of non-existence? Who the fuck gave you that concept?

So you can't or won't do it?

 

[Yakuda]

Unlike you, I don't fancy myself to be godlike. I know my limitations. It is ALWAYS a matter of "Likelihood".

I fail to see sufficient evidence for God so I fail to believe in God. That is NOT the same thing as claiming there is no God. I cannot make the latter claim precisely because I could be in error. God could be "hiding" or He could simply have failed to provide sufficient evidence to convince me to believe.

You said there is zero likelihood there is a God. That means there is no God. Is there a God yes or no? Grow some fucking balls and answer the question. "Yes" or "No"?

 

[Litmus]

Exploring your lack of faith is not a "path to spirituality".

I've never heard an atheist describe their atheism as a "path to spirituality".

Spirituality and atheism are simply incompatible.

atheism today is a movement to destroy morality and lead people to great spiritual evils.



of course there are people who don't believe in stuff, but they're not generally willing to spend hours about it debating online unless the SPIRITUALITY OF OTHERS is their agenda.

see "demoralization agenda".

 

[Litmus]

Bullshit.

only belieiving in demons and Satan is an option too I suppose.

 

[Kafka]

I apologize to you. I thought you were a different type of person...the kind with whom I often choose to engage in serious debate. You are not. I am suspending serious discussion with you at this point.

I have answered you question. I see that upon answering it you choose to run away. Fair enough.

 

[Kafka]

You said there is zero likelihood there is a God.

Per my perception, yes.

That means there is no God. Is there a God yes or no? Grow some fucking balls and answer the question. "Yes" or "No"?

Why are you unhappy with what MY personal belief system is? Why does it threaten you so?

I have told you quite clearly: I fail to see evidence of God so I fail to believe in God.

It's pretty simple, concise and clearly an existential threat to all you hold dear. Sorry 'bout that.

 

[Kafka]

atheism today is a movement to destroy morality and lead people to great spiritual evils.

Sorry we scare you so much.

of course there are people who don't believe in stuff, but they're not generally willing to spend hours about it debating online unless the SPIRITUALITY OF OTHERS is their agenda.

Discussing theology is fun. But it's usually you "believers" who find it most threatening. Probably because you don't like thinkin' too deep on any topic, let alone your "faith".

 

[Litmus]

Sorry we scare you so much.



Discussing theology is fun. But it's usually you "believers" who find it most threatening. Probably because you don't like thinkin' too deep on any topic, let alone your "faith".

I'm not scared; I have the power of Christ behind me.

and as for your "discussion", all I've seen you do is discuss which word means how many gods you believe.


the point of religion is morality, though yes, all human institutions can go awry and do wrong things, like inquisitions and irrational wars.

 

[Litmus]

The separation of church and state does not mean the separation of morality from humanity. --AssHatZombie

 

[Ross Dolan]

I have answered you question. I see that upon answering it you choose to run away. Fair enough.

I'm okay with that.

 

[Kafka]

I'm not scared; I have the power of Christ behind me.

You sure do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about what atheism is doing.

and as for your "discussion", all I've seen you do is discuss which word means how many gods you believe.

That's not my doing. That's Ross's obsession question. He's crafted it and he thinks it's some sorta gotcha question but he's incapable of actually discussing the topic in technical detail. He gets overwhelmed.

the point of religion is morality, though yes, all human institutions can go awry and do wrong things, like inquisitions and irrational wars.

I understand some people need to have an invisible being beyond space and time to tell them not to abuse other people. Some of us can arrive at that conclusion without the supernatural

 

[Kafka]

I'm okay with that.

Like I said: you are a bad faith debater. You asked the question, I answered it and now you run away and are happy with it.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Like I said: you are a bad faith debater. You asked the question, I answered it and now you run away and are happy with it.

Sorry you are bothered by that, O. I am just a happy person.

You ought to try it.

 

[Yakuda]

Per my perception, yes.



Why are you unhappy with what MY personal belief system is? Why does it threaten you so?

I have told you quite clearly: I fail to see evidence of God so I fail to believe in God.

It's pretty simple, concise and clearly an existential threat to all you hold dear. Sorry 'bout that.

So there is no God? "Yes" or "No"

 

[domer76]

not questions....just your incredibly stupid claims.

I'm not scared; I have the power of Christ behind me.

and as for your "discussion", all I've seen you do is discuss which word means how many gods you believe.


the point of religion is morality, though yes, all human institutions can go awry and do wrong things, like inquisitions and irrational wars.

Christ couldn’t even save his own ass, much less yours.

 

[domer76]

So there is no God? "Yes" or "No"

There may be. Just not the personal, interactive, omni-everything Christian one. No doubt about that.

 

[Kafka]

Sorry you are bothered by that, O. I am just a happy person.

You ought to try it.

You don't understand atheism. Fair enough. You are an agnostic so you don't have to know anything about anything else.

 

[Kafka]

So there is no God? "Yes" or "No"

Not sure how much more simply I can make this but I'll try again.

I FAIL TO BELIEVE IN GOD.

That's pretty simple. It really, really is. Even for someone like you.

Why does that frighten you so much?

 

[Litmus]

Christ couldn’t even save his own ass, much less yours.

the power of Christ commands you, demon, reveal your name!