The Church should respect tough questions

Ross Dolan said:
When I chose you as a debate partner, I was of the opinion that you were a good one...a challenging one. Some of your responses lead me to consider you a reasonably civil, intelligent, formidable opponent.

Things have changed. You are now showing traits that mostly come from immature people...people without substance...people unlikely ever to concede mistakes.

I said I thought you were late 30's early 40's. I now think I was seriously wrong in that estimate. You may be just out of school.

Share that with me. How old are you...and just a thought or two about life experience.
Click to expand...
I have answered you question.

If you ask me which is more likely: that no god exists or that some gods exist I will say that the likelihood is that no gods exist.

If you ask me which is more likely: that one god exists or that many gods exist I will say that the likelihood is equal. Both are zero.

If you ask me which is more likely: that no god exists of that many gods exist I will say the likelihood is that no gods exist.

If you ask me which is more likely: that one god exists or that some gods exist I will say that they are equal, both are zero.


How many different ways do you need this answered?
 
domer76 said:
Wow, you copied and pasted SEVERAL definitions. Good on you. My spirit, my consciousness, my psyche, my senses of the wonders of the natural universe are spiritual, indeed. Sans any deity. Tyson, Sagan, Einstein - all in wonderment of the universe without the need for a deity.

Because science has not yet found answers for everything in the universe does not make them beyond the realm of the natural universe.

Angry at the god of Abraham? Angry at a myth? Hardly. Anti-Christian? Naw, just amazed at the gullibility and ignorance of its members when it comes to their myths.

If, by “religious” you mean “devoted”, there are many religious atheists. Atheism, unlike theism, isn’t a path to anywhere. It just is. The spiritual side of someone resides in themselves, unreliant on a manmade deity.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Cypress said:
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 is "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 surprsing that someone would complain about religion, if they don't know much about religions of the world. If you are angry at Christianity, that doesn't make you a good spokesperson for Atheism. It makes you a spokeperson for people who don't like Chrisitainty.
Click to expand...
Everyone who disagrees with you is emotional. You, however, are rational. How convenient.
 
Cypress said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you are being a bit hyperpedantic? The word "spiritual" can be used in "common parlance" to mean awe-inspiring. Do you think atheists are incapable of appreciating art? Trust me, I've been through more art museums than you have used bookstores. I love art. It makes me feel good.

Am I disallowed to have a good awe-inspiring feeling when I see art? Or does it mean I HAVE to believe in an invisible being beyond space and time who created all things and has an intelligence?

No, many of us speak in flowery language from time to time because we are allowed to experience the full human spectrum of emotions. The fact that YOU think a pretty sunset = GOD ALMIGHTY that's your thing, not everyone's.

Also: don't you ever have any fun with languages? Have you ever read a piece of fiction and enjoyed it? Why can't people speak using flowery language from time to time? Or must all terms be utilized as only their first definition in the OED?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
then don't pretend to be an atheist.....they NEVER admit they're wrong......
Click to expand...

Or you could learn about atheism so you'd know that the type of atheist I am is the kind who simply fails to see sufficient evidence to believe in God.

I tend to believe in claims other people make if they provide evidence. I have seen no evidence for God that convinces me to reject the null hypothesis.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Or you could learn about atheism so you'd know that the type of atheist I am is the kind who simply fails to see sufficient evidence to believe in God.
Click to expand...
there's only one kind of atheist........you are describing yourself as an agnostic and whining because we won't agree your're an atheist.......
 
NiftyNiblick said:
We arrive at the belief that a deity doesn't exist in different ways, I think, Frank.

The reason that I'm an atheist instead of an agnostic is because
it is to me seriously illogical that a perfect, omnipotent deity
would willfully create such an incredibly imperfect universe.

It is to me seriously illogical that a perfect omniscient deity
would create sentient creatures
that the deity knows in advance were going to commit grievous transgressions.

It is especially illogical to me that the allegedly created creatures
would actually worship an omnipotent, omniscient deity
who knew in advance how much those creatures would suffer.

If they fear the deity, why would they purport to love the deity?
Why would they even suggest that in addition to being omnipotent and omniscient,
the deity was all-loving as well?

To me, the existence of a deity is more than unlikely enough for me
to see myself as an atheist rather than an agnostic.

Should I be agnostic about
Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy as well?
Click to expand...
Solid reasons for being an atheist, or at least for someone who doesn't agree with Christianity.

Perfection and imperfection, good and evil, a benevolent all loving omniscient being is very much a Christian religious obsessions, which don't necessarily apply to or have analogies with religions of Asia and the far East.

I do respect your atheism because you show no fear in embracing a strictly physical materialistic view of the universe and our lives in it.


I don't think the Santa Claus and tooth fairy really work the way you intend them to. First, it is universally known that those are fairy tales constructed to entertain children.

More importantly, there is nothing about the universe that requires Santa as an explanation. He is completely superfluous to all of our realities.

The cause of the universe, the origin of life, the purpose of being human are unanswered questions requiring answers. Science doesn't have the answer. It might someday. Religions claim to have the answer, but it's claims are unproven. I think at best, they possibly have only a small piece of the truth.
 
Obtenebrator said:
Don't you think you are being a bit hyperpedantic? The word "spiritual" can be used in "common parlance" to mean awe-inspiring. Do you think atheists are incapable of appreciating art? Trust me, I've been through more art museums than you have used bookstores. I love art. It makes me feel good.

Am I disallowed to have a good awe-inspiring feeling when I see art? Or does it mean I HAVE to believe in an invisible being beyond space and time who created all things and has an intelligence?

No, many of us speak in flowery language from time to time because we are allowed to experience the full human spectrum of emotions. The fact that YOU think a pretty sunset = GOD ALMIGHTY that's your thing, not everyone's.

Also: don't you ever have any fun with languages? Have you ever read a piece of fiction and enjoyed it? Why can't people speak using flowery language from time to time? Or must all terms be utilized as only their first definition in the OED?
Click to expand...
If you think looking at the stars is "spiritual", that's fine.

But I don't think you actually believe that.

Star gazing is a wonderful activity, but I back away slowly from any New Age crystal power hippies who gush about it being a transcendent spiritual experience. That's a load of New Age hippie nonsense.
 

Cypress said:
If you think looking at the stars is "spiritual", that's fine.

But I don't think you actually believe that.
Click to expand...

I am a fan of literature and the beauty of the English language. As such I tend to not limit myself to the words I can use.

It's probably because I'm so widely read that I tend to try to leverage the power of the language as more than just a blunt instrument.
 
Cypress said:
If you think looking at the stars is "spiritual", that's fine.

But I don't think you actually believe that.

Star gazing is a wonderful activity, but I back away slowly from any New Age crystal power hippies who gush about it being a transcendent spiritual experience. That's a load of New Age hippie nonsense.
Click to expand...

May I ask why you think metaphorical language is not allowed in common conversation but you see no problem with it in, say, the Bible or one of those Hindu works you talk about having read (literally in every third post you make)
 
Obtenebrator said:
I have answered you question.

If you ask me which is more likely: that no god exists or that some gods exist I will say that the likelihood is that no gods exist.

If you ask me which is more likely: that one god exists or that many gods exist I will say that the likelihood is equal. Both are zero.

If you ask me which is more likely: that no god exists of that many gods exist I will say the likelihood is that no gods exist.

If you ask me which is more likely: that one god exists or that some gods exist I will say that they are equal, both are zero.


How many different ways do you need this answered?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top