Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Forgive me for interrupting but that is simply not true. Outhouse and I have debated here for roughly one year, me being the newer member obviously. I have found him to be learned and very adept at presenting his arguments. He has also been fair and listened, although on some topics he and I have strongly disagreed. Instead of attacking him, why not just try to listen to one another? I am a believer in God and he respects me and has never been unfair or unkind.That's my point. Outhouse seems to do no more than parrot popular atheist authors like Sam Harris and personify what Francis Bacon said:
"A little philosophy inclineth man's mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion."
You have already admitted to a certain amount in previous post.
But honestly sir, its easy to see what level you reside at. We are like a big family here, we see literally thousands come and go from all walks of life globally.
Most people have almost no credible education on these topics, and its painfully obvious. No one is saying you have no knowledge, or lack of quality.
But your not a biblical scholar, nor amateur historian. You seem to have trouble judging people based on your assumptions here.
Maybe but and this is a very important point, he would do so to get the debater of the opposite camp to think about his views or points. What I find difficult to understand is why people who have belief in God most often devolve into rude remarks.I agree that it seems to be the case.
I also get the impression he at times says "silly" things merely to see how the other person responds.
Why the snarky remarks, if, as you say, you have education in psychology? I, too, have a masters in psych, assuming you are meaning to say you have a masters. I also have a PhD in theology and a masters in nursing and holistic health. So what? I learn from Outhouse quite often, as I hope he gets some knowledge from me. If, as you say, you are open to all areas of thought, why are you not trying to see his side of this? Being a believer in God, I still try to see things from Outhouse's POV. I don;t agree with him on this point as he has not provided me with enough reason to not believe in God but I still listen to his POV and try to understand and at the same time, be kind about it. It is really a good way of using this forum.Sure mister know it all. You are exhibiting all the characteristics you accuse me of. Is this not merely you projecting what you are on to me? So when the truth comes along you suddenly suffer from blindness and then try the "majority" argument. The majority once believed the earth was flat but they were proved wrong by one solitary man.
Your indoctrination is glaringly obvious.
I have never claimed to be a biblical scholar nor an amateur historian My degree is in Psychology and Criminology. But since a toddler and while you and others were, in all probability, chasing skirts I was already chasing knowledge and the truths concerning all things ! I am neither gullible nor naive. I appear to be what you will never be for my mind is open to all things while it does not appear so in your case as per your posts,
Time and again you have made incorrect assumptions and came to false conclusions about others on this forum.
Forgive me for interrupting but that is simply not true. Outhouse and I have debated here for roughly one year, me being the newer member obviously. I have found him to be learned and very adept at presenting his arguments. He has also been fair and listened, although on some topics he and I have strongly disagreed. Instead of attacking him, why not just try to listen to one another? I am a believer in God and he respects me and has never been unfair or unkind.
So when the truth comes along
Forgive me for interrupting but that is simply not true. Outhouse and I have debated here for roughly one year, me being the newer member obviously. I have found him to be learned and very adept at presenting his arguments. He has also been fair and listened, although on some topics he and I have strongly disagreed. Instead of attacking him, why not just try to listen to one another? I am a believer in God and he respects me and has never been unfair or unkind.
Using capital emphasized letters is bad internet etiquette as it donates shouting at others.
Couldn't the same be said of your POV? You are a believer, I assume. Can you truly embrace what it means to be an atheist? Or is your view biased based on the fact that you do believe? Alan Watts' views are inherently biased as well. Similar to Merton's views, whom I deeply enjoy. Both were/are priests who embraced Buddhism or eastern faiths. How does that make them any better or worse than people like Erhman? In a word, it doesn't.Because you are an atheist. (It cannot be understood from the outside.)
I think it is fair to say that the OP is more of a challenge than a genuine question,
So, FYI, I posted in another thread an excerpt from Alan Watts' Behold the Spirit. It's not so much an argument, in my opinion, as a statement allowing theists to summarily dismiss atheism as nothing more than a superstition. The only attempt to rebut it was so juvenile that I didn't bother responding. The same is true for books attempting to make a case for atheism—even those written by former evangelists. Even the title of this thread implies that religion is about arguments. And that's just ridiculous.
Deeply blushing....kiss kiss darling. And a fine middle of the night to you love.True.
While we have our difference of opinions, you are held in the highest esteem.
Being a believer in God, I still try to see things from Outhouse's POV. I don;t agree with him on this point as he has not provided me with enough reason to not believe in God
Does this give him license to deliberate twist your words or use strawman tactics? Is he with some of his remarks not asking for it?Maybe but and this is a very important point, he would do so to get the debater of the opposite camp to think about his views or points. What I find difficult to understand is why people who have belief in God most often devolve into rude remarks.
Ok dear one, we are going to disagree here somewhat. I base my belief in God on experience and education, as you know. So I disagree with you that faith is not based on evidence or education. Now, that being said, I do agree that some do reject education when it comes to faith. However, that is not true of all peoples. That is particularly true of fundamentalists and fanatics.You could not be further from the truth.
Religion instills a belief system built on faith, not evidence and education.
Due to this faith system, a barrier has been built between reality and theology created in mythology, in my opinion.
The fundamentalism, and fanaticism of the religions is not up for debate here. If you would like to talk about he differences in each religion and how specific we can generalize this negative aspect. We have severe levels of pseudohistory and pseudoscience in all religions that do negatively impact society as a whole, many embarrassing humanity.
Tell me did you read with comprehension what I said. I merely informed him of not making any claims and at the same time informed him of part of my education. Your spiel on this does not speak well for one of your education.Why the snarky remarks, if, as you say, you have education in psychology? I, too, have a masters in psych, assuming you are meaning to say you have a masters. I also have a PhD in theology and a masters in nursing and holistic health. So what? I learn from Outhouse quite often, as I hope he gets some knowledge from me. If, as you say, you are open to all areas of thought, why are you not trying to see his side of this? Being a believer in God, I still try to see things from Outhouse's POV. I don;t agree with him on this point as he has not provided me with enough reason to not believe in God but I still listen to his POV and try to understand and at the same time, be kind about it. It is really a good way of using this forum.
And I wouldn't. It is not up to me to change your POV. I love debating this with you and yes, we disagree about some of the historical aspects of how faith was built but that doesn't change that you have a profound knowledge on the subject, equal or better than my own I would say.My goal is not to change your faith
Nor would I try.
You focus on truthfully understanding the past. That is also my goal.
You have never let your faith cross historical or scientific lines in any debate, you have never given me any reason to address your personal faith.
He has never twisted my words or used strawman tactics with me. Not once. He may use remarks that are more strongly worded than I would but I am not he. I have seen more insults from you sir than from him albeit, I have not read this entire thread yet and tend to read threads backwards. I respect the man. I don;t agree with him on many issues but we have a good and caring relationship, albeit in absentia from being online.Does this give him license to deliberate twist your words or use strawman tactics? Is he with some of his remarks not asking for it?
Go back to the drawing board, count and see how many snide remarks, innuendos, direct insults and fallacious assumptions he throws about.
But so what I accept him as he is and much of what he says is water off a ducks back.
Then you need to sit back and read some more of the threads. My word, you are both so new here. And yet, you have jumped to erroneous conclusions because he has your back up. Why not listen or try to understand. This is something of the peoples of the Christian faith that I will never understand. And no, I am not Christian. I am Buddhist.I doubt Shad and outhouse actually contribute to any conversation. I'm new here, but all I've seen from either of them is superficiality and nay-saying.
I doubt Shad and outhouse actually contribute to any conversation. I'm new here, but all I've seen from either of them is superficiality and nay-saying.