The Great Debate: "Has Science Refuted Religion?

by dark angle 239 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  NewChapter

  If your defintion were true FHN, then I would be pointing this out about many posters that disagree with me. I don't. I have pointed it out about you though. And frankly, this has been the most direct you have ever been. So that's progress.

  My worldview offends some believers. Stating my worldview offends them more. That is okay. I have tried to clarify some, but it is not accepted. That's okay too, because perhaps the difference is too subtle to make any big difference. Palm's joke was funny to me for reasons you may not understand. It expresses a frustration that some of us feel. That when we do debate a believer, there is always an 'out'. I will give you some direct examples:

  prayer works. Always. If it seems to not work, then either we need to learn a lesson, or there is a bigger issue we don't understand.

  ---in other words, no amount of evidence to the contrary will have any impact. It's all covered.

  God is all powerful and can relieve suffering through prayer. If something goes wrong it is because he chooses not to act---for the better good. But that doesn't mean he never acts.

  ----in other words, God is all powerful, but he has his reasons for not acting. Not acting is not proof that he is not engaged. But when relief does come, it means he did act. It never fails. In spite of all evidence to the contrary, he is covered.

  There are dragons in the room. I don't see them. They are invisible.

  ----again, all bases are covered. One will believe there are dragons in the room regardless of all evidence to the contrary. They simply become invisible.

  That is why the joke is funny---because it expresses a frustration. Perhaps you find it offensive, but it is not without foundation.

  NC
• 

  NewChapter

  I would also like to point out that everyone engages in passive agressivene behavior at times.

  Yes they do, and so do I. There are sometimes valid reasons for using such an approach---although I try not to--it is a part of the human make up. But there are degrees of all behaviors and different motivations. I have called this behavior out as stirring trouble, and then freaking a bit when someone actually reacts. It is a desire to confront without consequence. Some people would like to have their say without challenge. So they do so in a way that makes the other person look like a trouble maker or overly sensitive when they do call it out.

  NC
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Peace to you, NC. I honestly don't want for there to be this tense friction between us personally. I would like to see more respectful exchange between atheists and theists, diests and believers of any level.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I am not offended by the atheist's world view. I also want to be clear about that. I remember when I was a teenager. I went through my own rumble in my soul as respects prayer, God, higher powers, religion, agnosticism and atheism. My rumble touched at times with atheism. I've had times in my adult life when I was very agnostic. I would call myself very unconventional when it comes to these subjects. It's easier have a discussion with someone who differs in view if the person doesn't throw up road blocks and conversation stoppers.
• 

  Qcmbr

  I'll trade your respectful exchanges ( read zero progress IMO ) for more fact based exchanges. If believers would bring more substance to the debates we'd all have much more progress and real change.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  If believers would bring more substance to the debates we'd all have much more progress and real change.

  Substance is relative to what side of the debate you're on.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Nope it's not FHN. That's the lie you tell yourself when you have nothing but your inner feelings to offer. Substance is testable, check able and verifiable and is the stuff of knowledge and gets people like me excited. I love to learn new stuff. People's woo stories, meh.
• 

  FlyingHighNow

  I'm telling you that what you and I see as substance differs.
• 

  Qcmbr

  And I'm pointing out that you don't get to define it. Neither do I. When you want to define what constitutes a valid argument in the face of social consensus you get people thinking that an inner feeling is more powerful than billions of man hours of scientific research. My hate of faith as a blight upon mankind grows :(
• 

  palmtree67

  I'm sad that the influence of one s**t-disturber is still popping up on the board.

  We used to be able to discuss these hot-button topics without EVERY LITTLE SUPPOSED SLIGHT BEING POINTED OUT AD NAUSEUM. We used to be able to discuss without the stark Us vs. Them mentality.

  I really think we ALL are still just suffering the aftereffects of one person whose main purpose was the throw the board into chaos, as she did with every other board she joined and got kicked off of.

  Not everything is a "personal attack" and not everything is MEANT to be offensive. We are ALL being too sensitive right now. At the same time, the high emotions that have been stirred up ARE resulting in some personal attacks and deliberate offense.

  I am positive we will get back to normal soon.

  But this is what I see happening right now. Just the dying results of a bad influence that is, thankfully, gone now.

  ** prepares for the onslaught **