Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, you're 'oppressed'..You don’t think atheists are justified in their desire to debate proponents of the philosophy that oppresses them?
Every human does that unless they are true agnostics, but then still."Somehow, everyone seems to come to the, erm, "natural" reaction of: "Why, mine, of course!""
But "case" is the important term here.I think I rest my case.
I already explained that in my very first response to this thread. Atheists are often unable to come out as atheists to their family and friends for fear of being ostracized. It’s nothing so dramatic as concentration camps, but that dismissive attitude of yours is exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to correct when we put our message out.Oh, you're 'oppressed'..
In what way?
People disagree with you?
Or do they try to prevent you from going outside?
Oh, I wouldn't say that. I quite like The Cure.
Well, I am the devout believer in the theologically different God... so, do you think abnormality can shock me?
I'm being dismissive of your victim status.I already explained that in my very first response to this thread. Atheists are often unable to come out as atheists to their family and friends for fear of being ostracized. It’s nothing so dramatic as concentration camps, but that dismissive attitude of yours is exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to correct when we put our message out.
I already explained that in my very first response to this thread. Atheists are often unable to come out as atheists to their family and friends for fear of being ostracized. It’s nothing so dramatic as concentration camps, but that dismissive attitude of yours is exactly the kind of thing we’re trying to correct when we put our message out.
what everyone else thinks of their choices
Would that mean that there are only individual apologetics, or that these are part of a greater, general apologetic?So, the answer to the OP is yes, because a complete apologetic should always include personal testimony...wouldn't you say this is true for any apologetic, Christian or not?
You called atheists victims, not me. I only explained why atheists feel the need to organize and educate the public on our position. It’s because we are a minority group that wants our voice heard. You wishing we’d just shut up and deal with it is the exact opposite of the solidarity we seek.I'm being dismissive of your victim status.
I respect you, regardless of your convictions.
You're a fellow human being.
We're basically all in the same boat on this weird planet, i.m.o.
But too often "your message" (the atheist message) is a mix of ignorance and arrogance.
So i often wonder: Why not just tell us what it is that bugs you about the Christian faith?
And why not just admit that the existence of God has a lot of explanatory power?
You don't HAVE to believe it, but acting as if it's ridiculous is in itself ridiculous.
...so, what was this topic about again...?
Would that mean that there are only individual apologetics, or that these are part of a greater, general apologetic?
Neither did I.I don't get what you are asking...
Neither did I.
What is a "complete" apologetic? What is an "incomplete" apologetic?
Any "personal testimony" would, by definition, be personal. So any other apologetic that did not include this specific testimony would, by definition, have to be incomplete.
But because it is personal, every apologetic that is not held in a general form would have to be incomplete.
What the OP was asking was if Christian apologetic included psychological abnormalities.
If we are talking about specific, personal apologetics, then, yes, of course, this would be true. An apologetic doesn't need to be correct, normal or even sane.
But I was interpreting the OP in the sense that he talked about rationality-based apologetics that held at least a shread of aspirations to be correct and rationally understandable. And in that case: no, psychological abnormalities would have no place in apologetics.
Hm. I would disgree with your understanding of apologetics. But seriously I can't see any point in debating this, so... if that is your view: fine.Apologetics, like science, is a subjective endeavor from the start...it is dealing with communication between persons, all of whom experience some level of psychological abnormality...so, a complete apologetic is one that recognizes this and deals with it.
...it would be surprising to me if Genetically Modified Skeptic [i.e. the guy in the OP video] really thought that his analogy carried as much parallel meaning and application as you seem to think he does. But, you could be correct in thinking that he does since it wouldn't be the first time we've since atheists run with an explanation about the nature of religion that is essentially a hackneyed use of terms in one field misapplied to another.No, I don't think he's making things up. There has obviously been development, and you can definitely see strong cultural elements in many variations of Christianity, but I don't think it's entirely appropriate to import biological concepts like natural selection. You can't say, "Well, I think eyesight was an unjustified evolutionary development, so I will return to photosynthesis." You very much can take that approach to theology, though.
Oh, I'm sorry to hear you have to go through that. Ugh! What a time killer!Less "good work ethic," more "long commute," I'm afraid.
Hm? I think I said - and I quote:
So I don't know what you are trying to ask.
But it allows me to add a little thought that I might not have expressed correctly in the last post.
"Religious thought" is natural and normal. The "idea" of religion, of conscious agents beyond the observable sphere, of "powers" and "deities" and "spirits"... that is based on human nature. And because the vast majority of humans have that basic human nature... it is "normal".
Though... curiosity and skepticism, the quest for ever further, ever new answers is also based on human nature, and is something that the vast majority of humans share. So irreligiosity is also "natural" and "normal".
But, to go back to your question, that is about the foundation, not the specifics. Every specific "religion" is a human construct. It is based on human ideas, human perceptions, human inventions and human needs and wants. It is based on a "natural" foundation, but is in itself artificial.
Alright. In attempting to clarify what I may have perceived or misperceived about the ways in which your views may coalesce with my own, I think I see now that this is both some similarity and some difference. On the side of similarity, we can both affirm that religion, like most human cognitions, express some kind of human mental constructs also predicated upon human wants, needs, desires, etc. With that, we're similar on a very general scale, so far so good.
However, more in line with some of the things @Silmarien said above, I'm going to have to say that the term "natural," as you are attempting to use it, is slightly bigger and may contain too many distinctions that those like me could make in denoting Subjectivity from Objectivity, and from full Artificiality from realistically drawn and conceived essences within our (shared?) Reality. This would mean that there may also be a continuum on which the disposition and acting out of "irreligiousity" becomes something that isn't necessarily "natural."
Hm again.Sometimes, it may be; sometimes it might instead be an abnormal expression depending on exactly what relative angle of viewing we look at it. I guess in this regard, we could take Judas as an example of unnatural religion---the guy should have know, but just couldn't find it in himself to follow through; although Saul (before he became Paul) could be seen as a kind of more "natural" irreligious response. Thank God Jesus knocked him on his natural keester before he could do any real damage to Christianity .............. !
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?