When's the last time you heard something new from the Christians?

[Sarpedon]

Well, you could start by convincing other christians to believe as you do, before you expect non-christians to take you seriously.

 

[Politesse]

Well, you could start by convincing other christians to believe as you do, before you expect non-christians to take you seriously.

I'm not in the business of proselytizing. But I do, of course, have conversations with people from all manner of religious backgrounds. It's what I do for a living, in fact.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You're not obliged to discuss anything. If you only want to talk about one denomination and its various tried and true apologetics, nothing is stopping you. I just found the thread kind of funny. Refusing to entertain new ideas, then complaining that there are no new ideas. What other outcome could one possibly expect?

If you won't start a new thread about new ideas, you can't know people are refusing to entertain new ideas. You know most atheists like to focus on fundy-ism. If that's the topic, it's the topic. If a person with a more "slant" point-of-view, like you or I, were to enter a discussion on fundy-ism and say "I know of a broader, more 'liberal' religious POV than the fundy's", then we've derailed that discussion.

The choice to not start new threads is a choice to not introduce new ideas in a context where they'll be "entertained".

It's all either fundyism or wooism. We'll see science, history and archaeology used in an attempt to prove the woo, which in turn proves the fundy, and then see science and archaeology used to disprove science and archaeology. So for me it's all so predictable.

Ultimately it's about those Santa-like beings that some people love to pretend in. That's the most interesting part for me, how the human limbic system loves those heroes with those super powers.

I suppose it's a cognitive difference in the end, so I do try to be understanding. There are lots of folks here today with plenty more brain power than myself and they never make fun of my lack thereof. So I try to do the same thing with folks who suffer from religious addiction. In the end I believe it is only a cognitive difference, a different brain.

 

[Rhea]

Well, you could start by convincing other christians to believe as you do, before you expect non-christians to take you seriously.

This is great advice. IN those threads, take your novel idea and address the fundy instead of us. Convince HER and we’ll watch and see if they find it believable. That would be interesting.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know why you believe I never talk to Christians. Is it because you only know me from this website?

 

[steve_bank]

There is a name for it, the continuous spinning of current events to fit the bible. TV shows and books. I watch a show once in a while. They always come up with some new validation.

 

[Rhea]

I don't know why you believe I never talk to Christians. Is it because you only know me from this website?

Were we talking about something other than this website?

You complained that we on this website didn’t engage you, and I suggested that you on this website engage the theists with whom you disagree. And we could see how your arguments work with people closer to believing them.

 

[southernhybrid]

Well, I hate starting threads, so...

Not to criticize you personally, but that has always been something about the majority of posters here that I consider a problem. Most don't start new threads, but they have no problem jumping in to threads and derailing them. Imo, we should all start new threads, at least if we want to discuss something that is unrelated to an OP. Some of my threads go without any replies, some get very little attention, some are derailed and a few go on endlessly while I lose interest and abandoned my own thread. I don't care.

So, not liking to start a thread isn't an excuse to interject something not related to an OP into an ongoing thread. ( like I'm doing right now. )

So, if you were to start a discussion about the many positive things about liberal sects of Christianity, it would be interesting. Some atheists will criticize your beliefs. some atheists think there is just one version of Christianity, the one that interferes in our lives. They condemn cherry picking, while I applaud cherry picking if you are sure to choose the sweetest cherries.

I don't currently know any liberal Christians who really think about what they believe. They just believe out of tradition. And as far as criticism goes, haven't you noticed how the atheists at TFT often criticize and bash each other? It's not just directed at you, Poli. I don't like it, but I've never been one to give a fuck about what other people think about me. As an atheist in the heart of the Bible Belt, who has always been quite open about her beliefs, I have been attacked many times. It usually makes me laugh. Their rays cannot harm me. ( stole that line from the comedian Judy Tenuta )

I apologize for adding to the derail.

 

[Politesse]

I don't know why you believe I never talk to Christians. Is it because you only know me from this website?

Were we talking about something other than this website?

You complained that we on this website didn’t engage you, and I suggested that you on this website engage the theists with whom you disagree. And we could see how your arguments work with people closer to believing them.

I do, when I disagree with them on things.

 

[Politesse]

Well, I hate starting threads, so...

Not to criticize you personally, but that has always been something about the majority of posters here that I consider a problem. Most don't start new threads, but they have no problem jumping in to threads and derailing them. Imo, we should all start new threads, at least if we want to discuss something that is unrelated to an OP. Some of my threads go without any replies, some get very little attention, some are derailed and a few go on endlessly while I lose interest and abandoned my own thread. I don't care.

So, not liking to start a thread isn't an excuse to interject something not related to an OP into an ongoing thread. ( like I'm doing right now. )

So, if you were to start a discussion about the many positive things about liberal sects of Christianity, it would be interesting. Some atheists will criticize your beliefs. some atheists think there is just one version of Christianity, the one that interferes in our lives. They condemn cherry picking, while I applaud cherry picking if you are sure to choose the sweetest cherries.

I don't currently know any liberal Christians who really think about what they believe. They just believe out of tradition. And as far as criticism goes, haven't you noticed how the atheists at TFT often criticize and bash each other? It's not just directed at you, Poli. I don't like it, but I've never been one to give a fuck about what other people think about me. As an atheist in the heart of the Bible Belt, who has always been quite open about her beliefs, I have been attacked many times. It usually makes me laugh. Their rays cannot harm me. ( stole that line from the comedian Judy Tenuta )

I apologize for adding to the derail.

It's not my intention to derail any threads... in this thread, for instance, I was stating my honest opinion on why Rhea probably doesn't hear a lot of novel arguments. That is, in fact, the topic.

 

[Sarpedon]

I've seen a few new things on here recently.

Excreationist drew our attention to a "new" chronology for Noah's flood. Unfortunately, there's nothing new about christians changing the timeline based on no evidence.

Christian booksellers banned books that described alleged near death experiences including visits to heaven after a major case of fraud where a father fraudulently spun his terribly injured 6 year old's imaginative, drug addled ramblings into a major cash cow (for himself, leaving his wife, still terribly disabled son and three other children penniless). This is what passes for Christian theology today. In absence of any recognized authority, book publishers decide what gets disseminated or not. But at least that annoying theological fad is over.

The issue of excreationist's "new" flood chronology illuminates the disagreement we are having with Politesse: a disagreement about what constitutes "new" and "different." To me, there's nothing new about christians revising their flood chronology based on current events and present concerns. I've seen them do this so many times. To me, it is "different" but not "new." No new evidence was unearthed, merely the length of the assumed generations was changed (no justification, other than it worked better with regard to their end goal). But to Excreationist, this was a "new" thing that seemed to solve many problems, and the "new" interpretation of the length of generations was interesting and well grounded (note: it is neither). Our problem with Politesse seems to be similar.

 

[Politesse]

I've seen a few new things on here recently.

Excreationist drew our attention to a "new" chronology for Noah's flood. Unfortunately, there's nothing new about christians changing the timeline based on no evidence.

Christian booksellers banned books that described alleged near death experiences including visits to heaven after a major case of fraud where a father fraudulently spun his terribly injured 6 year old's imaginative, drug addled ramblings into a major cash cow (for himself, leaving his wife, still terribly disabled son and three other children penniless). This is what passes for Christian theology today. In absence of any recognized authority, book publishers decide what gets disseminated or not. But at least that annoying theological fad is over.

The issue of excreationist's "new" flood chronology illuminates the disagreement we are having with Politesse: a disagreement about what constitutes "new" and "different." To me, there's nothing new about christians revising their flood chronology based on current events and present concerns. I've seen them do this so many times. To me, it is "different" but not "new." No new evidence was unearthed, merely the length of the assumed generations was changed (no justification, other than it worked better with regard to their end goal). But to Excreationist, this was a "new" thing that seemed to solve many problems, and the "new" interpretation of the length of generations was interesting and well grounded (note: it is neither). Our problem with Politesse seems to be similar.

I don't see the flood much differently from any other secular scholar. I suppose by the logic of this thread, I ought to be arguing with excreationist about this, but I don't really care a lot about the issue and I learned long ago that arguing with creationists is a bit like arguing with brick walls, except that in the case of actual brick walls, sledgehammers are actually pretty effective. I note that we did have a conversation on this forum about the Gilgamesh version of this mythic motif, not very long ago.

 

[rousseau]

Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.

 

[Politesse]

Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.

Now that does seem like a derail. So perhaps I really should just start a thread.

 

[rousseau]

Without actually derailing the thread or causing further conversation, to Politesse, what are your beliefs and how do your arguments differ from others?

I've been curious how an academic who's presumably schooled in the scientific method chooses faith.

Now that does seem like a derail. So perhaps I really should just start a thread.

Well it's not a derail if you answer, and then I say 'thanks for the answer', and then we carry on with the thread.

I'm not being disingenuous, I've actually been curious about this for a while. But if you don't want to answer publicly, feel free to PM, or just don't answer at all.

 

[Half-Life]

It is extremely hard for the Christian to show the Atheist proof that God does exist.
Likewise, it is extremely hard for the Atheist to show the Christian proof that God does not exist.

There really is nothing I can point to that says, "This proves God is real."
There really is nothing atheists can point to that says, "This proves God is not real."

All of the things atheists like to use as reasons for not believing: evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, do not in any way show that God does not exist. The atheist has no clue if God is needed for the processes or not. They say "none of these processes show that God exists," but how do those processes show that God does not exist? You're assuming the processes run by themselves.

Then there's the laws of physics. No scientist has ever explained how the laws came into being, just that there are laws. The question of, "How, if there is no mind involved with the laws, does water freeze at 32 degrees fahrenheit instead of some other degree?" and questions like this, are unanswerable in a materialistic universe. All they can say is "that's just when it freezes" with no explanation. Mindless laws? No way.

Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe. For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.

 

[DBT]

A lack of conviction in the existence of a God or gods (atheism) is based on the absence of evidence to justify a conviction in the existence of a God or gods.....those who are convinced in the existence of a God regardless, hold their belief on the basis of faith, which requires no evidence in order to believe.

 

[Keith&Co.]

All of the things atheists like to use as reasons for not believing: evolution, big bang, abiogenesis, do not in any way show that God does not exist.

How many times have you seen an atheist say that the Big Bang is proof God does not exist?

The atheist has no clue if God is needed for the processes or not. They say "none of these processes show that God exists," but how do those processes show that God does not exist?

So, wait, do they or do they not say "This is proof God does not exist"? Seems like you're stepping on your dick, here.

You're assuming the processes run by themselves.

Ah, so scientists (=! Atheist) might say "we can explain ____ without having to invoke a god" but that is not "Evolution proves God does not exist." You're tilting at windmills again.

Then there's the laws of physics. No scientist has ever explained how the laws came into being, just that there are laws. The question of, "How, if there is no mind involved with the laws, does water freeze at 32 degrees fahrenheit instead of some other degree?" and questions like this, are unanswerable in a materialistic universe.

Maybe they're just fucking stupid questions.
I mean, it may be an observed fact, but is there a reason to pose your question except to try to create a gap expressly for your god?

All they can say is "that's just when it freezes" with no explanation. Mindless laws? No way.

your incredulity is not terribly compelling as a reason to believe in a being with universe-creating power who gets upset if the apes on one planet masturbate

Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe.For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.

Okay, so you're saying that DESIGNED things glitch and fail, and The Universe is COMPLETELY UNLIKE a designy thingy? This us your (snicker) evidence for your god?

 

[Sarpedon]

I don't see the flood much differently from any other secular scholar. I suppose by the logic of this thread, I ought to be arguing with excreationist about this, but I don't really care a lot about the issue and I learned long ago that arguing with creationists is a bit like arguing with brick walls, except that in the case of actual brick walls, sledgehammers are actually pretty effective. I note that we did have a conversation on this forum about the Gilgamesh version of this mythic motif, not very long ago.

I was using it as an illustrative example not an implication that this is what all christians believe. It was an example of the SORT of "new" christian idea that commonly comes up: merely a retread of an old one, tailored for the contemporary audience, and with no new evidence to support it. We have noticed that creationists do this constantly. While I certainly think your ideas are more respectable, I don't see them as being fundamentally different: they remain a retread of old ideas, with some of the more objectionable ones discarded, to tailor it to the contemporary audience. Perhaps if a christian were to rigorously reexamine christian theology and scripture on the basis of previous mythology, and seriously discuss the implications of that, that would be an interesting and 'new' approach. Comparing Noah's flood to Gilgamesh's is a good start, but do you explore the implications of that? If one major story in the bible simply a borrowing of an untrue story from a neighboring culture, how do you know other stories aren't also? I suspect the reason christians don't do this rigorously is because they don't like where it would lead. It is much easier to dismiss the occasional story as a borrowing and think no more about it.

 

[Atheos]

Another point is how there are no glitches in the universe. For example, sometimes people's computers freeze and they restart it and it works again. The universe doesn't work this way. It goes on without a hitch. No way mindless laws can be better at making a perfect system than a human mind actually focused on making that perfect system.

I'm interested. Please give us an example of what a glitch in the universe would look like. This would help immensely in appreciating the fact that they don't happen.

I had a Timex Sinclair computer. When it glitched and I had to restart it, it had no idea that it had once been running and had been restarted. It only "knew" how long it had been running. My question is, "How do we know that the universe wasn't rebooted, say, Last Thursday?"