The Church should respect tough questions

[Yakuda]

Such as?



I wouldn't want anyone to abandon their faith based on something I said.

A tree.

You didn't read what I wrote but you claim, "My atheism came after decades of thought, consideration and examination of my faith."

I didn't say anything about what you "said".

 

[Kafka]

A tree.

That's evidence for God?

Can you walk me through the process of how that leads one to belief in God?

 

[Kafka]

I didn't say anything about what you "said".

I was responding to this:

I've challenged atheist for years to do one thing and if they could do it I would instant abandon my belief in God.

In other words I would not want to ever be in a position where what I do leads you to abandon your belief in God.

 

[Yakuda]

That's evidence for God?

Can you walk me through the process of how that leads one to belief in God?

Sure. You didn't make a tree did you?

Yes. Why do trees exist?

BTW it is smart of you to abandon the "My atheism came after decades of thought, consideration and examination of my faith."

 

[Kafka]

Sure. You didn't make a tree did you?

There's a lot of things I didn't make. Doesn't mean they are all because of God.

Yes. Why do trees exist?

That is a meaningless question in my philosophy. I see no reason for trees to exist, they simply do. It is a matter of evolution. Exploiting a niche in an environment.

BTW it is smart of you to abandon the "My atheism came after decades of thought, consideration and examination of my faith."

I didn't abandon it. Please don't take that approach of simply lying about my position and then acting like I agree with you. Let's have an actual adult conversation.

 

[Yakuda]

I was responding to this:



In other words I would not want to ever be in a position where what I do leads you to abandon your belief in God.

Why not? If you could do the one thing it would force me to abandon my belief because my belief would be wrong. If I say 2+2=6 i shouldnt that belief if you show me im wrong?

 

[Kafka]

Why not? If you could do the one thing it would force me to abandon my belief because my belief would be wrong. If I say 2+2=6 i shouldnt that belief if you show me im wrong?

Nope. My atheism is my spiritual path and mine alone. Part and parcel of my atheism is the understanding that I could be wrong.

 

[Yakuda]

There's a lot of things I didn't make. Doesn't mean they are all because of God.



That is a meaningless question in my philosophy. I see no reason for trees to exist, they simply do. It is a matter of evolution. Exploiting a niche in an environment.



I didn't abandon it. Please don't take that approach of simply lying about my position and then acting like I agree with you. Let's have an actual adult conversation.

I didn't make that claim. You're jumping to conclusions

Tress do have a purpose though which implies a design and a mind.

You should

 

[Yakuda]

Nope. My atheism is my spiritual path and mine alone. Part and parcel of my atheism is the understanding that I could be wrong.

Well you are wrong and if you aren't sure you're right then why bother. My belief is based in part on a simple principle. If you did something to challenge it in would have to reconsider but you aren't convicted enough to prove your point.

 

[Kafka]

Tress do have a purpose though which implies a design and a mind.

How do you know trees have a purpose?

The arguments against "intelligent design" are many but not the least of which is: you have no way to know what amounts to "design" in a tree.

Yes, you can point to the complexity of the tree, but that complexity arises out of simple rules of biology which, in turn, derive from even simpler rules of chemistry, which, in turn, derive from even simpler relations in physics.

Look at crystals as an example. A complex structure of almost perfect angles and edges and beauty arises spontaneously in nature. This thing was formed spontaneously from a small set of simple rules related only to the size of atoms and their charges:

It was not carved, it was not polished. It literally came out of the ground looking like this.

 

[Kafka]

Well you are wrong

I am wrong because my spirituality is different from yours. That is as I suspected. It is important for the believer to NEED the atheist to believe as they do or they are simply "wrong".

and if you aren't sure you're right then why bother

I am fully aware of my limitations. Perhaps you do not have self-awareness or think yourself perfect? That would be surprising for a Christian given that your imperfection is part of the entire thing.

. My belief is based in part on a simple principle. If you did something to challenge it in would have to reconsider but you aren't convicted enough to prove your point.

I believe I've been quite clear on my point. I am more than happy to discuss God with you but I don't need you to believe as I do. I would, however, be impressed if you could mount a defense of your God concept that was more than simply pointing at a tree and making an ex cathedra claim that it has a "purpose" and a "design" without any evidence for such claims.

 

[Litmus]

Young people are hungry for environments where they can ask tough questions about faith.

“One of the things I want to challenge us as a Christian community [is that] rather than telling young people exactly what to think about everything, we [should] also teach them how to think. And that includes creating spaces where they can ask questions, where they can feel safe in church asking questions.”

“Jesus would pose questions to his audience, and Jesus took questions publicly. In his discourses, there would be questions, not just from friendly people, but people who were trying to trip him up publicly. So, Jesus welcomed questions to be asked of him, and he also asked questions of his audiences. This is an aspect of how Jesus taught that I don’t always see modeled in church."

“When all questions are welcomed and respected, all people are welcome and respected. This trains young people in the art of reconciliation.”


-- Erica W. Carlson, theoretical physicist, Purdue University


https://cfc.sebts.edu/faith-and-sci...tions-helps-students-faith-at-the-university/

sounds like vague nonsense.
christianity already has core teachings.

 

[Cypress]

I didn't say it was "most important".

Yes of course. Jesus has no contemporaries in this regard.

I agree. Id say a lot of atheists are intellectually lazy and ignore the context without serious investigation.

I'd say in a certain sense, Christianity achieved it's goal in the end, no matter how many atheists and agnostics there are.

For many centuries in the West, there has been widespread consensus on the importance of Judeo-Christian ethics and the values of the New Testament, even when the religious language and context are stripped away. Similarly, in Asia Buddhism and Confucianism have so thoroughly permeated society, that people in East Asia practice Confucian values without even realizing where it came from.

Whatever one thinks about it, religious values have just permeated world societies in a way that German and French philosophy professors never have.

 

[Kafka]

I'd say in a certain sense, Christianity achieved it's goal in the end, no matter how many atheists and agnostics there are.

There's a lot to unpack there. A not insignificant amount of Christianity's expansion was done with a sword. In a very real sense vast swaths of Europe are Christian today for very, very, very UN-Christian reasons.

So it's not like "Christianity" achieved its goal....PEOPLE achieved the goal of forcing others to believe as they do.

Not that I'm complaining. I love western civ stuff and it is built on this faith by and large. Just that the faith qua the faith didn't really achieve the goal. If anything it's expansion was in SPITE of the faith.

 

[Cypress]

There's a lot to unpack there. A not insignificant amount of Christianity's expansion was done with a sword. In a very real sense vast swaths of Europe are Christian today for very, very, very UN-Christian reasons.

So it's not like "Christianity" achieved its goal....PEOPLE achieved the goal of forcing others to believe as they do.

Not that I'm complaining. I love western civ stuff and it is built on this faith by and large. Just that the faith qua the faith didn't really achieve the goal. If anything it's expansion was in SPITE of the faith.

Translation:

Yes, there was a Western consensus that Christian New Testament values and ethics were the gold standard to aspire to, but no Christianity had nothing to do with it.

 

[Kafka]

Translation:

Yes, there was a Western consensus that Christian New Testament values and ethics were the gold standard to aspire to, but no Christianity had nothing to do with it.

I think you will agree that the FACT of the matter is Christianity was spread in many places at the point of a sword (eg St. Olaf in Norway). Which is pretty much antithetical to Christian values.

It's like saying "I'm going punch you unless you love your neighbor".

Why do you find this funny?

 

[Cypress]

My atheism is my spiritual path

You always seemed reticent to embrace the reductionist materialism of atheism.

Atheism isn't a spiritual path.

Spirituality are beliefs or practices having to do with religion, or with beliefs in immaterial transcendental realities and higher truths than what we can experience in the physical world.

The difference between that and religious belief is almost non-existent.

 

[Kafka]

You always seemed reticent to embrace the reductionist materialism of atheism.

Atheism isn't a spiritual path.

Sure it is. I am exploring my understanding of my faith or lack thereof.

Spirituality are beliefs or practices having to do with religion, or with beliefs in immaterial transcendental realities and higher truths than what we can experience in the physical world.

Are you against all turns of phrase or just this one?

The difference between that and religious belief is almost non-existent.

It's a figure of speech. Nothing more. You're overreading intot it.

A rhetorical flourish if you will.

 

[domer76]

I never heard of that happening anywhere.

True. Whenever I’ve asked tough questions or pointed out some difficulties to “people of faith”, they typically dig in their heels. No answers. Maybe not with anger, but reflexive defensiveness. And often conversation ending cliches.

“You’ll find out in the end!”

 

[domer76]

I'm guessin' you can thank the Romans for that.

And Paul. He made it a religion ABOUT Jesus instead of a religion OF Jesus.