Hello,
I'm a theist who is up to having a one on one discussion with anyone about religion. I am a Catholic, so matters that pertain to Christianity/Catholicism would be the area I am most able to comment effectively upon. I came to the one on one discussion board so that I am not bombarded and buried under a ton of responses.
It's been a few years since I was here last, so it's good to be back. Other than that I'll check in here when I get the chance. If we are actively discussing a topic and I have to run I'll let you know so that you're not waiting at your computer for a response that will take some time in coming.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 02:49:57 PM
Hello,
I'm a theist who is up to having a one on one discussion with anyone about religion.
Why?
Why not? Anyways, when I was here a few years ago I enjoyed talking to people here even if I didn't agree with them. Other Atheist forums were angry and I found that this forum was more respectful. And with that I'm being dragged away to do errands. Back later.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 29, 2014, 02:52:00 PM
Why?
Same question. The only thing I think when I see something like this is that you think we are stupid and you are here to edify us, which is usually the case. Like this article points out, we know more about religion than theists
http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/09/28/survey-atheists-know-more-about-religion-than-believers/
Btw, people like Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates, Alan Guth, Sigmund Freud, Alan Turing, Richard Feynman and Lawrence Krauss were or are atheists. They are all smarter than you.
So.......why?
QuoteI am a Catholic, so matters that pertain to Christianity/Catholicism would be the area I am most able to comment effectively upon.
How can you remain in an outfit with the sordid revelations of your priesthood molesting children?
P.S. - Nice gesture by the Red Sox at Jeter's ceremony yesterday. I usually don't have anything good to say about the Red Sox, either.
Quote from: Minimalist on September 29, 2014, 03:09:35 PM
How can you remain in an outfit with the sordid revelations of your priesthood molesting children?
More importantly, an organization that protected child molester and covered things up for decades, if not centuries.
Frankly, that's an old question by now and not very interesting except it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with you. If it was any other kind of organization, it would have lost all their membership. But because it's a religion, it continues to thrive.
I'd love nothing more than a one on one discussion about something I don't give one rats turd about..
I'll start. Religion is utter bullshit.
Your turn.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 02:56:17 PMOther Atheist forums were angry and I found that this forum was more respectful.
(http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&source=images&cd=&docid=_VJCa1CO3_UxQM&tbnid=rNPmOpamaXO0PM:&ved=0CAUQjBw4hwE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.pandawhale.com%2Fpost-31074-J-Jonah-Jameson-laughing-gif-S-NWLY.gif&ei=890pVLrAD8eRyAThu4D4BQ&psig=AFQjCNG_spDMtn8YBjhLWRlEePT0eGLEPA&ust=1412116339349260)
As much as I want to talk to everyone else on here anti_thesis wrote in first so I'm going to respond to him.
Quote from: the_antithesis on September 29, 2014, 03:12:07 PM
More importantly, an organization that protected child molester and covered things up for decades, if not centuries.
Frankly, that's an old question by now and not very interesting except it makes me wonder what the hell is wrong with you. If it was any other kind of organization, it would have lost all their membership. But because it's a religion, it continues to thrive.
My belief is not based upon the evil acts of our members, but on the goodness of God.
With that said, I've had friends (at least one confirmed this) who were molested by a priest. As a young Catholic the scandals infuriate me. We're pissed about it. I can say that the priest that did this to him was later killed in prison. I can also say my friend has had a tough life as a result of this, bouncing from one woman to the next. The fact is that Christianity and Catholicism do not condone this abuse. Evil men did this, or failed to stop it.
As for the abuse scandals in the US, they seem to be in rapid decline after it climaxed in the 50's-70's. Now and since the late 90's and early 2000's there has been increased scrutiny in an effort to keep this from happening. So... where do all the pedophiles go now? If they are no longer able to get into the clergy? Look for positions of trust among the community and they will be there exploiting that trust. I.E. Public schools etc.
Check back in a few.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 02:56:17 PM
Other Atheist forums were angry and I found that this forum was more respectful. And with that I'm being dragged away to do errands. Back later.
I think this is the first time this forum has ever been called respectful. Keep at it and you'll annoy one of us enough to debate you.
I'm game. Will it be a formal debate, or just a publicly-viewable discussion?
Be sure and read the thread about Jesus didn't exist. There are also books on the subject with the same conclusion. Catholic priests have been buggering little boys for centuries. Get a clue, seriously.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
The fact is that Christianity and Catholicism do not condone this abuse.
The Catholic church knowingly and willfully protected known pedophiles for years. The church used every tactic available to keep victims quiet and protect the guilty from prosecution. The church that should have been there to help victims heal, instead paid victims off to keep them quiet. If that doesn't equate to condoning said abuse, I don't know what does. If you're good looking the other way on that, so be it. I'm not.
But lets move beyond that. There are tons of mono-theistic religions. Almost all of them claim that their god is the one true god and no other exist. So what makes you sure that your god is the right god? What makes you so sure followers of every other religion are wrong and will therefore burn in hell?
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
Evil men did this, or failed to stop it.
Yes, that is true. Now would you call an organization that at every level failed to stop this, even though they had the power to, evil? Because I sure as hell would.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 02:49:57 PM
Hello,
I'm a theist who is up to having a one on one discussion with anyone about religion. I am a Catholic, so matters that pertain to Christianity/Catholicism would be the area I am most able to comment effectively upon. I came to the one on one discussion board so that I am not bombarded and buried under a ton of responses.
It's been a few years since I was here last, so it's good to be back. Other than that I'll check in here when I get the chance. If we are actively discussing a topic and I have to run I'll let you know so that you're not waiting at your computer for a response that will take some time in coming.
As a life long and die-hard (means I stand by them win or lose) Yankee fan, we would clash in more than one area. :) I am always curious why a person believes in God; how were you introduced to the concept? Now that you are an adult (I assume you are), why do you continue believing in God? I have tried all my life to understand God. I've been to several churches, bible schools, bible studies, and even been a church board president and vice president. Always interested in the 'why' and 'purpose' of life--still am. I have read the bible from cover to cover--not all at one setting, of course--and have a couple dozen books dealing with the bible. They range from the absurd from the nonbelievers to the absurd believers and everything in between. I've spent 4/5 years attending Jesus Seminar conventions and the like. The typical problem with discussing this topic is that the theist usually falls back on name calling when they become uncomfortable with the direction the conversation takes--I enjoy a respectful discussion. Often I learn stuff in that manner. I probably would not try to dissuade you about your beliefs, but I would ask pointed questions; and I would expect the same in return. I did respect the way the Sox Nation treated Jeter--that was classy.
There's really no defense for the Catholic Church. You can brag it up all you want, but it's vile and corrupt, a rotting fish that contaminates our society, and the people that see it as a force of good are woefully lost in a brainwashed denial. Most are beyond help and will not find their way out. They have been blinded by authority.
Discuss what? Religion is mythical BS foisted on mankind for purposes of control and indoctrination. Half or more of us here were all members of different religions and know everything you know, so what are you going to discuss? How many little boys have been buggered by how many Catholic priests for how many ceturies? Why Mother Teresa was sainted after abusing women and making them suffer for decades while she stuffed millions in a Swiss bank account?
Or how brain dead theists can keep believing when the evidence continues to mount that their vaunted gods don't exist and their savior was a myth invented after the fact by the Romans? Or how they are so buried in denial thay they can't see truth when it slaps them in the face?
I for one am terribly excited about another debate about everything we have already debated 132,938 times already. I am especially excited about the fact that........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Quote from: aitm on September 29, 2014, 10:29:39 PM
I for one am terribly excited about another debate about everything we have already debated 132,938 times already. I am especially excited about the fact that........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Be nice, he might present new evidence!
(http://i.imgur.com/BjdLf9A.gif)
QuoteNow and since the late 90's and early 2000's there has been increased scrutiny in an effort to keep this from happening.
Largely irrelevant. "Confession" is not real life. You don't get to say "sorry" to a non-existent god and pretend that everything is alright.
Anti_thesis still up for talking? If not choose a person to take your place for the one on one.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 29, 2014, 07:43:52 PM
I'm game. Will it be a formal debate, or just a publicly-viewable discussion?
I say formal debate. Because we all know the level of 'evidence' he's going to come up with. A general discussion would be too easy for him to get away with it. At least with a middle man not in the debate, we can make sure he stays on point and legit without everyone jumping in and telling him how off he really is.
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 30, 2014, 02:00:48 AM
I say formal debate. Because we all know the level of 'evidence' he's going to come up with. A general discussion would be too easy for him to get away with it. At least with a middle man not in the debate, we can make sure he stays on point and legit without everyone jumping in and telling him how off he really is.
I'll have to sharpen up a bit, then. It's been a little while since I did the suit-and-tie version of my usual routine. Should be interesting, though!
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 02:56:17 PM
Other Atheist forums were angry and I found that this forum was more respectful.
I take offence to this! We're just as angry and disrespectful as any other atheist forum out there!
Welcome back Redsoxfan77. Perhaps, before requesting a debate, you should make clear what you will be debating in favor of or against. What specifically do you think and what aspects of religion do you wish to talk about.
Actually, just a tip to the both of you, redsoxfan77 and Hijiri_Byakuren, be sure you agree on what subject specifically you wish to focus and be sure to stay focused on that part.
The formal debate with Casparov, I feel, suffered greatly from our not managing to discus what we said we'd discus.
Looking forward to reading your debate guys :)
Quote from: Jason78 on September 30, 2014, 04:31:43 AM
I take offence to this! We're just as angry and disrespectful as any other atheist forum out there!
Hear, hear!
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 30, 2014, 05:51:18 AM
Welcome back Redsoxfan77. Perhaps, before requesting a debate, you should make clear what you will be debating in favor of or against. What specifically do you think and what aspects of religion do you wish to talk about.
Actually, just a tip to the both of you, redsoxfan77 and Hijiri_Byakuren, be sure you agree on what subject specifically you wish to focus and be sure to stay focused on that part.
The formal debate with Casparov, I feel, suffered greatly from our not managing to discus what we said we'd discus.
Looking forward to reading your debate guys :)
I know I said that I would only respond to anti_thesis, but I guess this needs to be addressed as well. I actually came to this discussion board simply because I was seeking to prevent a bombardment of comments/questions from a whole host of other commentators. Not that the comments aren't worth while for the most part because they are, but because the majority warrant an adequate response that would require more time than I could put in.
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
Finally, still being new to this type of thread I was trying to figure out how to decide whom to talk to. Anti_thesis was the first to respond so I intend the discussion to be with him. If he doesn't want to he can choose anyone else on here to talk in his place. The question I have is how long do we wait if he's absent for an extended amount of time before I choose the next person to talk one on one with? Is there a local rule on this?
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
So you're not here to debate at all. We have no questions for you, actions speak for themselves.
Gee... To bad I can't resurrect my grandmother who at 94 had finally had enough of being scammed by the Catholic church and told them in essence to drop dead.
My mother wasn't to keen on the church either after when my sister died the church wouldn't so much as step foot in the grave yard because she was buried in a 'pagan' graveyard then had the guile to tell her that she and my dad would have to live as brother and sister and sleep in separate beds from then on out..
Wanna guess how strict of a catholic upbringing I had after that?
Hey, I'm not saying catholics are full of shit, but.... Oh wait.. Yes...yes I am saying catholics are full of shit..
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity.
Great. You have come to the right place. We are glad to help and will clear up your misconceptions about Catholicism/Christianity. There is a wealth of experience and knowledge here. Most of us are former Christians and/or Catholics. We have made critical appraisals of religious belief systems including our own former religious beliefs, and have accepted the fact that they make no logical sense. You certainly can benefit from your stay here. Welcome to reality.
Don't get me wrong. Christians do make critical appraisals of religious belief systems, just not their own.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
I know I said that I would only respond to anti_thesis, but I guess this needs to be addressed as well. I actually came to this discussion board simply because I was seeking to prevent a bombardment of comments/questions from a whole host of other commentators. Not that the comments aren't worth while for the most part because they are, but because the majority warrant an adequate response that would require more time than I could put in.
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
Finally, still being new to this type of thread I was trying to figure out how to decide whom to talk to. Anti_thesis was the first to respond so I intend the discussion to be with him. If he doesn't want to he can choose anyone else on here to talk in his place. The question I have is how long do we wait if he's absent for an extended amount of time before I choose the next person to talk one on one with? Is there a local rule on this?
I only now realized this already is in the 'one-on-one' discussion. Well, technically I suppose you would check if anybody wanted to do a one-on-one discussion in the peanutgallery or just reach an agreement in another thread. It seems a tad weird to start a one-on-one if you're only one. Basically, you could have started a more informal thread to find someone who agrees to a one-on-one.In that informal thread you can decide on all the rules and subjects the two of you can agree to. But I'm not sure it you HAVE to do it like that. Don't know if there's an official rule that says how a one-on-one needs to come about. This way, however, seems a tad confusing as I didn't notice it was the formal debate already. (I can't speak for others, of course.)
Also, if you find someone to debate you one-on-one on that subject, then good for the both of you. I think, however, that a lot of people here don't have misconceptions as a great deal of our ranks used to be christians. I used to be a catholic, for example. Most of us feel like Christianity isn't this obscure little religion that we don't know much about. Most of us see it daily and grew up in a cultural environment drenched in it. We are not atheïsts because we misconceive Christianity, but exactly because we conceive it for what it is.
For these reasons, I personally do not have any interest in discussing your religion with you. Not if you do not wish to make any specific and defendable claim. (And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying I don't think our discussion would be of interest to either of us.)
Good luck in finding a debatepartner though.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
I know I said that I would only respond to anti_thesis, but I guess this needs to be addressed as well. I actually came to this discussion board simply because I was seeking to prevent a bombardment of comments/questions from a whole host of other commentators. Not that the comments aren't worth while for the most part because they are, but because the majority warrant an adequate response that would require more time than I could put in.
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
Finally, still being new to this type of thread I was trying to figure out how to decide whom to talk to. Anti_thesis was the first to respond so I intend the discussion to be with him. If he doesn't want to he can choose anyone else on here to talk in his place. The question I have is how long do we wait if he's absent for an extended amount of time before I choose the next person to talk one on one with? Is there a local rule on this?
What kind of misconceptions do you believe people have about Catholicism?
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AMSecondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity.
$20 says that "answer questions about my faith" actually means to proselytize for that religion and the "misconceptions" about it are in fact perfectly valid criticisms of that religion that he takes issue with.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AMI know I said that I would only respond to anti_thesis
You titled the thread, "
Looking for a one-on-one discussion." That means whoever responded did so assuming the discussion had not started yet. Now I have volunteered to be your debate partner, but I am going to reconsider doing so if you're going to be anal about it.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:52:24 AM
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity. No specific debate was intended, though I expected some issues would evolve into debates about a particular topic.
You came to an atheist forum to help us understand Catholicism and Christianity? We're atheists FFS! We have no questions about your faith nor do we harbor any misconceptions. See you soon in purgatory!
Quote
Secondly, I came basically to answer questions about my faith and to clear up a lot of misconceptions that people have about Catholicism/Christianity.
Presumptuous on your part. I
was catholic long ago. Heard all the bullshit and rejected it fully by the time I was 20.
I have no more questions. I've got you people pegged.
http://youtu.be/pvhYqeGp_Do (http://youtu.be/pvhYqeGp_Do)
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on September 30, 2014, 08:31:37 AM
I only now realized this already is in the 'one-on-one' discussion. Well, technically I suppose you would check if anybody wanted to do a one-on-one discussion in the peanutgallery or just reach an agreement in another thread. It seems a tad weird to start a one-on-one if you're only one. Basically, you could have started a more informal thread to find someone who agrees to a one-on-one.In that informal thread you can decide on all the rules and subjects the two of you can agree to. But I'm not sure it you HAVE to do it like that. Don't know if there's an official rule that says how a one-on-one needs to come about. This way, however, seems a tad confusing as I didn't notice it was the formal debate already. (I can't speak for others, of course.)
Also, if you find someone to debate you one-on-one on that subject, then good for the both of you. I think, however, that a lot of people here don't have misconceptions as a great deal of our ranks used to be christians. I used to be a catholic, for example. Most of us feel like Christianity isn't this obscure little religion that we don't know much about. Most of us see it daily and grew up in a cultural environment drenched in it. We are not atheïsts because we misconceive Christianity, but exactly because we conceive it for what it is.
For these reasons, I personally do not have any interest in discussing your religion with you. Not if you do not wish to make any specific and defendable claim. (And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you should. I'm just saying I don't think our discussion would be of interest to either of us.)
Good luck in finding a debatepartner though.
Fair enough. To clarify: I'm looking for a debate partner. My background is Catholic/Christian. I'm willing to debate the first person to respond to this post on any topic covering those areas. However, we may not be in total/any disagreement. This will become clearer as we move forward. Let's see where this goes.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 03:51:26 PM
Fair enough. To clarify: I'm looking for a debate partner. My background is Catholic/Christian. I'm willing to debate the first person to respond to this post on any topic covering those areas. However, we may not be in total/any disagreement. This will become clearer as we move forward. Let's see where this goes.
As stated earlier: I will debate you. Narrow it down to a specific topic, and we can move forward from there
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
We'll also need a moderator to keep things on topic. Anyone wanna do it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 30, 2014, 04:50:19 PM
We'll also need a moderator to keep things on topic. Anyone wanna do it?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
I volunteer.
ETA: besides agreeing to a topic, also some basic rules should be laid down; for example, how much time one has to answer to a post, if both of you want to make some formal opening statements, etc.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on September 30, 2014, 04:52:38 PM
I volunteer.
ETA: besides agreeing to a topic, also some basic rules should be laid down; for example, how much time one has to answer to a post, if both of you want to make some formal opening statements, etc.
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/cd/cddc411ab94df9bc5bac2af5d20eece0e1f56ca0053a135833d23192a7ec315b.jpg)
I couldn't resist
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 30, 2014, 04:48:57 PM
As stated earlier: I will debate you. Narrow it down to a specific topic, and we can move forward from there
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk. Titty sprinkles.
Sounds good! I'm not really sure what you believe about any one particular topic concerning Catholic Christianity, so I'm forced to make a generalization/provocative statement and hope it starts a debate.
I'm in favor of having a 24 hour time limit to respond to every comment by which failure to respond would constitute in a default judgment in favor of the last posting party. A moderator is fine. I have no other suggestions and so I'm open to what you suggest.
Generalization: The Catholic Church condoned the holocaust propagated by Germany in World War II.
My contention: I have seen no such evidence that even credibly suggests endorsement by the Church of Germany's actions. (Purposefully short to spark debate).
Respond.
[mod]redsoxfan77 and Hijiri Byakuren, I will now open an official 1 to 1 debate thread for you.
redsoxfan77, once I open the thread please repeat your initial statement over there.
Thank you[/mod]
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 30, 2014, 04:48:57 PM
Titty sprinkles.
Are titty sprinkle sprinkles that go on titties? or sprinkles shaped like titties? :think:
Wait, shouldn't you at least wait until I've agreed to the topic being debated? :P
QuoteGeneralization: The Catholic Church condoned the holocaust propagated by Germany in World War II.
I have no case to make on that topic. Frankly, I'd like to stick to more basic ones, such as, "Does God exist?" It's kinda central to everything else Catholics believe, and it's our most fundamental point of disagreement. It's also one that I can go on for a
long time about without running out of things to say.
Thanks for making this talk happen you two!
First, I would ask before we get to the topic of "Does God Exist?", I would like to know what you believe. Are you atheist? Agnostic? What is your background? This will help me in framing my arguments.
To be fair my background is this: I was born into an Irish-American Catholic Family near Boston, MA. I've always had faith and believed in God as far back as I can remember. For my family I'm a bit of an oddball in the sense that I'm by far the most religious one in the family and always have been. I did go through a streak of believing in God, but not really following him starting in college and ending just a few years ago. Then I reverted back. I have a BA in history, an MA in theology, and a JD from an ABA university.
I still need to know about the tittie sprinkles, Hijiri.....
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 30, 2014, 07:00:05 PMAre you atheist? Agnostic? What is your background?
Atheist, specifically a secular humanist (by virtue of agreement). Raised by a Christian mother and agnostic father. Mostly stopped believing in the supernatural altogether when I stopped believing in Santa Claus, although at age 16 and 17 I had a brief fascination with the Occult, and then looked into Buddhism for a couple years out of highschool. I claim to be a deist around any family members I feel wouldn't accept atheism, and am versed in deistic arguments as a result.
Considered myself an agnostic atheist for most of my life so far. A few months ago I made a hard swing toward a more gnostic stance when I realized that every time science advances, definitions of God expand to provide more knowledge gaps for him to hide in. No god ever described in any scripture behaves consistently with the abilities you'd expect of a being capable of building the visible universe 14 billion light years in radius (http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/), and while I maintain that the existence or lack thereof of such a being is indeed an unknowable question, it is not
God.
If I go much further I'm going to be tempted to lay out my whole debate platform right here, so I'll stop.
OK people, as of now it looks like we've a slight problem with the database and the 1 to 1 section is a bit messed up. Apart from that, Hijiri is right: first of all you both have to agree on the debate topic and, on second topic, I agree that the topic originally proposed by redsoxfan77 is a bit too limited in scope. In short, no debate thread will be opened until the two issues above are solved.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 30, 2014, 06:24:13 PM
Wait, shouldn't you at least wait until I've agreed to the topic being debated? :P
I have no case to make on that topic. Frankly, I'd like to stick to more basic ones, such as, "Does God exist?" It's kinda central to everything else Catholics believe, and it's our most fundamental point of disagreement. It's also one that I can go on for a long time about without running out of things to say.
Amen!!!!!!!! It's a step in religion that is of utmost importance. Before one can worship the Lord, follow His commandments, or debate what church does it correctly, one must first determine if such an entity exists. If you fail to do that, the rest is just fabricated nonsense.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on September 30, 2014, 07:23:00 PM
Atheist, specifically a secular humanist (by virtue of agreement). Raised by a Christian mother and agnostic father. Mostly stopped believing in the supernatural altogether when I stopped believing in Santa Claus, although at age 16 and 17 I had a brief fascination with the Occult, and then looked into Buddhism for a couple years out of highschool. I claim to be a deist around any family members I feel wouldn't accept atheism, and am versed in deistic arguments as a result.
Considered myself an agnostic atheist for most of my life so far. A few months ago I made a hard swing toward a more gnostic stance when I realized that every time science advances, definitions of God expand to provide more knowledge gaps for him to hide in. No god ever described in any scripture behaves consistently with the abilities you'd expect of a being capable of building the visible universe 14 billion light years in radius (http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/), and while I maintain that the existence or lack thereof of such a being is indeed an unknowable question, it is not God.
If I go much further I'm going to be tempted to lay out my whole debate platform right here, so I'll stop.
Ok thank you for telling me this. When you say agnostic atheist do you mean that you are a person who does not believe that God exists but won't rule out the limited possibility? A few months ago you became more certain that God does not exist, but is there any any agnostic belief you have to God at all, or are you fully atheist?
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 01, 2014, 07:03:20 AM
Ok thank you for telling me this. When you say agnostic atheist do you mean that you are a person who does not believe that God exists but won't rule out the limited possibility? A few months ago you became more certain that God does not exist, but is there any any agnostic belief you have to God at all, or are you fully atheist?
There's no such thing as a "fully atheist" or a "partial atheist", for that matter. At most, you can make a distinction between an "agnostic atheist" (doesn't believe in the existence of god(s) but can't be sure) and a "gnostic atheist" (knows that gods don't exist).
Quote from: PickelledEggs on September 30, 2014, 07:11:19 PM
I still need to know about the tittie sprinkles, Hijiri.....
(http://mrwgifs.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Tom-Cruise-Says-Its-Classified-On-Top-Gun-Gif.gif)
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
As much as I want to talk to everyone else on here anti_thesis wrote in first so I'm going to respond to him.
Check back in a few.
We may have gotten a little angrier since your last visit. Lots of trolls. But I've a feeling you are not one of those.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 01, 2014, 07:03:20 AM
Ok thank you for telling me this. When you say agnostic atheist do you mean that you are a person who does not believe that God exists but won't rule out the limited possibility? A few months ago you became more certain that God does not exist, but is there any any agnostic belief you have to God at all, or are you fully atheist?
You're asking instead of telling. I like that!
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 01, 2014, 07:03:20 AM
Ok thank you for telling me this. When you say agnostic atheist do you mean that you are a person who does not believe that God exists but won't rule out the limited possibility? A few months ago you became more certain that God does not exist, but is there any any agnostic belief you have to God at all, or are you fully atheist?
As DunkleSeele said, you are either atheist or you are not, just as you are either theist or you are not. "Gnostic" and "agnostic" are merely stances on what you claim to know or not know with some degree of certainty. So an agnostic atheist would be someone who doesn't
know if there is or is not a god, but does not currently have a reason to believe one exists. Being on the more gnostic side of things now, I'd be more likely to say that there probably are no gods.
When it comes to the existence of God, I came willing to debate the possibility that one exists. As long as that is held to be possible, no matter how improbable, then we are in agreement. We differ on where we go from that point on.
Am I correct in saying that you believe that it is most improbable but not definite that God does not exist?
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 01, 2014, 01:32:57 PMAm I correct in saying that you believe that it is most improbable but not definite that God does not exist?
I approach the subject scientifically, so I will say it is possible. The catch is that something is only possible if it is
falsifiable.
So, for the purposes of this debate: if you agree to concede that I can falsify God's existence, then I will concede that you can prove his existence.
I'll concede it. Though I only really hoped to show what you already concede, a slim, slim possibility of God's existence.
We can continue to debate on this particular topic, but I will be blunt in saying that this is not my area of expertise. Still I'm up for learning what you have to say.
Or we can move to another issue. It's up to you.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 01, 2014, 08:23:54 PM
I'll concede it. Though I only really hoped to show what you already concede, a slim, slim possibility of God's existence.
We can continue to debate on this particular topic, but I will be blunt in saying that this is not my area of expertise. Still I'm up for learning what you have to say.
Or we can move to another issue. It's up to you.
I'm happy with this topic, and I think it's the only useful conversation you and I can have. Any other debate we had about your beliefs would come down to God no matter what, because at the end of the day every criticism I had of your beliefs would begin and end with, "Prove that God exists before defending the philosophy based around him."
As far as expertise: I'm not exactly a PhD myself. I have an AA degree that was heavy on the physical and social sciences, along with some philosophy, ethics, and humanities. Over the course of discussions like this one, I've gotten practice at some basic scientific journalism, which is to say I know how to do some fact-finding, how to determine if my source is reliable (and if it is indeed a
source, which is a step many people miss), and how to turn that into something I can use in a debate format. So again, not an expert: I just know enough to be dangerous.
Since the purpose of a debate is to convince the
audience and not necessarily your opponent, feel free to see this as an opportunity to test and improve your skills. You probably won't convince me in the span of one conversation (nor do I expect the reverse), but you will be able to identify the subjects that are important to your target audience, and by extension the subjects you need to improve your knowledge on.
For DunkleSeeleThe topic is, "Does God Exist?" Redsoxfan77 will be arguing in favor of God existing, while I will be arguing against it. My opponent may specify the exact version of God he is defending in his opening statement, but must remain consistent in that regard: no last-minute "well perhaps God is actually [blah blah blah]" should be allowed. In return, I will not bring other Christian interpretations of God into the conversation, although using other religions' gods as examples for comparison is still fair game (including Islam and Judaism). Burden of proof may not be used as an argument in this debate: Redsoxfan77
must try to prove that God exists, and I
must try to show that the evidence is insufficient or flawed.
So with all that said: DunkleSeele, would you please do us the honor?
*waits for the go ahead.
Still having a database error in One-on-One Discussion. Can we move it to Formal Debates in the meantime? See if the issue persists?
OK, I opened the debate thread here in the peanut gallery, so you two can start. It will be moved to the one-on-one section as soon as the databease error will be solved.
Please read my introductory post there before starting.
Alright, well I'll get my opening statement ready while we wait for Redsoxfan77 to do the same. I'll aim my opening statement at a general reading of the God of the Bible so we can get the basic arguments out of the way, and save the specifics for my first rebuttal. I'm doing this for two reasons: to keep my opening statement from becoming a rebuttal, and to give Redsoxfan77 a chance to call out any strawmen he thinks I'm building.
I expect to have my opening statement done between late Thursday and early Friday. Early Saturday at the latest.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on October 02, 2014, 12:18:05 AM
Burden of proof may not be used as an argument in this debate: Redsoxfan77 must try to prove that God exists, and I must try to show that the evidence is insufficient or flawed.
Well this won't take long.
OK so to describe my faith I would describe it as being in accord with the Church. I'll try to simplify this as much as possible so isn't confusing.
1. I believe in God the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. 3 persons in 1 God.
2. The Bible is important, but not the sole authority on matters pertaining to God. There is also to the faithful Catholic the Magisterium of the Faith, and Church Tradition. So the Bible is only 1/3 of our view point of God. This is different from all forms of Protestantism, which for many on this forum is the most common form of Christianity you will come across in the US.
3. The are many ways to understand the Bible. Certainly literalism is one way to understand the Bible, but often it's makes the readings incomprehensible. The Historical Critical method, I believe is better. For those who don't know the various ways to Biblical interpretation here is a good intro link. http://www.ewtn.com/library/curia/pbcinter.htm
4.God is more unknown than known. We can know a lot, but much of what God is is still a mystery. This is going to annoy many, but just as any learned discipline grows in understanding Christianity is no different.
5. I believe in Rahner's view of the Anonymous Christian. Keep in mind when Rahner was writing this, he was not trying to upset anyone. Try to understand what he says from his position.
6. The Apostles' Creed is a good summary of the faith, but just that, a summary.
7. I don't find Science and Faith in God to be incompatible.
8. Time is a construct. Meaning God created time while being outside of it. He has interacted within time on several occasions, i.e. the life of Jesus. But still exists outside of time. Outside of time there is still a linear progression of events. Of that we know very little.
9. This is a woefully inadequate definition of my faith and the first time I've debated this specific topic.
Any questions?
Something like that should go in our debate thread, not this one.
redsoxfan77, the official debate thread is here (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=6285.0). Please read my introductory post there and then post your opening statement. Thank you.
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 02, 2014, 04:37:35 PM
Any questions?
(http://handsomecitizens.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/pulp.fiction.i.dont_.remember.jpg)
I think Redsoxfan was looking tor the tea-and-scones-crowd and landed on the beer-and-pizza-after-six-hits-on-the-bong-crowd.
Why is it that people that believe in a personal God need a Church or churches?
Sorry about the errors guys, I'm still working out some bugs. The ones that affected this thread should be gone though.
beer and pizza > tea and scones.
Well the debate's off to a confusing start. Talking in turn between two people is confusing though.
:popcorn:
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on September 29, 2014, 07:02:35 PM
As much as I want to talk to everyone else on here anti_thesis wrote in first so I'm going to respond to him.
My belief is not based upon the evil acts of our members, but on the goodness of God.
With that said, I've had friends (at least one confirmed this) who were molested by a priest. As a young Catholic the scandals infuriate me. We're pissed about it. I can say that the priest that did this to him was later killed in prison. I can also say my friend has had a tough life as a result of this, bouncing from one woman to the next. The fact is that Christianity and Catholicism do not condone this abuse. Evil men did this, or failed to stop it.
As for the abuse scandals in the US, they seem to be in rapid decline after it climaxed in the 50's-70's. Now and since the late 90's and early 2000's there has been increased scrutiny in an effort to keep this from happening. So... where do all the pedophiles go now? If they are no longer able to get into the clergy? Look for positions of trust among the community and they will be there exploiting that trust. I.E. Public schools etc.
Check back in a few.
That really doesn't answer the question. Your belief is yours. The fucking pope doesn't give it to you, yet you continue to fund an organization that protected pedophiles and attempted to cover it up. You give them your money. Why?
QuoteI'm actually going to have to forfeit this debate due to time constraints. The 24 hour rule I won't be able to meet, given that I have to find new work.
But if you want to keep on debating despite my responses taking longer then they should I'm fine with that.
As it stands Hijiri wins.
(http://makeameme.org/media/created/well-that-descalated.jpg)
C'mon, man, be a champ. That is, unless you have no new arguments. You do have them, right? Right?
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bN9se-ul_aE/SxWnzTBh8xI/AAAAAAAACIk/i2SOU1rxUfI/s400/winner-theme.gif)
(http://atheistforums.com/index.php?action=dlattach;attach=258;type=avatar)
Quote from: redsoxfan77 on October 03, 2014, 05:55:47 PM
beer and pizza > tea and scones.
Pizza from where?
(I will judge you harshly based on your answer.)
Quote from: PickelledEggs on October 04, 2014, 09:18:24 PM
Pizza from where?
(I will judge you harshly based on your answer.)
C'mon now, there is no bad pizza :p
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 05, 2014, 12:48:50 AM
C'mon now, there is no bad pizza :p
Pizza anywhere south of New Jersey...
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on October 05, 2014, 12:48:50 AM
C'mon now, there is no bad pizza :p
You've obviously never had Domino's...
Sent from inside your mom
What, you never heard of Little Caesar's? Homeless people won't eat it.
I could brand you as a heretic and burn you at the stake for such blasphemy, Mr. O.
Either you have never eaten chain restaurant pizza, or you've only eaten chain restaurant pizza. If it's the second one.... I pray for your soul.
Sent from inside your mom
Never heard of Little Ceasar's, and never had Domino.
Pizza Hut over here ain't bad, though I don't concider it pizza. Sometimes I crave pizza, and I want real pizza. Sometimes I crave junkfood and I want Pizza Hut.
However, I've honestly never had bad pizza. Can't recall a single time.
QuoteThe 24 hour rule I won't be able to meet, given that I have to find new work.
You obviously don't have enough faith because as Frank the P would tell you, just ask and thy will receive.. Just pray for a job and *POOF!* You're the CEO of a fortune 500 company just like that.. Where do you think fortune 500 CEO's are made? Certainly not on atheistforums.com.. :think:
He's baaack.... and bringing proofs of god. Oh, goody. Been on here 5 years and no one has been able to prove god's existence. About time.
Well gee. god transmits his will through the bible, or maybe other ways. Like prophecy. Simple. All you need is proof prophetic utterances did indeed come true. We shall see......
Quote from: stromboli on October 07, 2014, 02:55:20 AM
He's baaack.... and bringing proofs of god. Oh, goody. Been on here 5 years and no one has been able to prove god's existence. About time.
Well gee. god transmits his will through the bible, or maybe other ways. Like prophecy. Simple. All you need is proof prophetic utterances did indeed come true. We shall see......
He also can't seem to decide if this is a debate or an informal discussion. At this point, I'm ready to call it a victory if he continues ignoring standard debate format. I came to answer a formal debate challenge, and if he doesn't want to cooperate with the format that he chose, then he can fuck right off.
Looks like the debate in the other thread has become inconvenient for Red. Apparently, the rules of the debate are difficult for him to follow, and he now has other commitments. My guess is that he equated debate with "telling us about God", and then ended up in an environment that does not facilitate that agenda.
Here's how religious debate works.. Theist: I'm right because of the bible.. You: No you're not. Theist: Burn in hell. You: OK, thanks.
See how easy that is?
Bets on whether he starts with the First Cause argument?
Debate moved to the "informal debates" section, as it was turning anyway into a clusterfuck.
(Shit, I hate to perform chores before I've had my fourth cup of espresso. It makes me grumpy.)
I'm reminded of the maxim on not debating pigeons:
(http://i.imgur.com/sHuCAA8.jpg)
"The book" says Marvin the Marsion (fuck..marsion isn't in my spell check) is going to blow up the earth.. But a rabbit is going to save us all.. I'm betting on the rabbit.
DUCK DODGER IN the 25 1/2 CENTURY!
Quote from: DunkleSeele on October 08, 2014, 02:33:08 AM
Debate moved to the "informal debates" section, as it was turning anyway into a clusterfuck.
(Shit, I hate to perform chores before I've had my fourth cup of espresso. It makes me grumpy.)
No man or woman should be denied that 4th cup. Fucking inhuman. :naughty:
btw, how does "clusterfuck" translate into Italian? Like to bone up on my language skills. :biggrin: