The difficulty of talking to Atheist

[Colter]

I, as an atheist, fully support your right to worship as you please, and your right to voice those beliefs in the public square.

What I don't support is using government resources to evangelize for your religion.

Can you understand the difference between the two?

Yes I do and I agree.

 

[Colter]

So you agree that belief is not a fully conscious choice then?

I believe that faith is a gift, a semiconscious subjective reality, activated by the will to do the will of God. The "choice" is to follow the spirit.

 

[Colter]

No... Wanting churches not to be tax exempt and not allowing secular public schools to favor any religion is not an attempt to quash religion

I disagree on taxing charitable donations of any kind.

I agree that creationism has no place in secular schools nor the Atheist agenda.

 

[Ken-1122]

We don't have religious totalitarianism in the Western world, the secular revolt rightly diminished the power of the church. But that wasn't enough for the secularist, now they want to quash religion from society altogether.

That's an awfully broad brush you are painting with!

K

 

[Belk]

I disagree on taxing charitable donations of any kind.

I agree that creationism has no place in secular schools nor the Atheist agenda.

I have an agenda now? Dang it I have got to stop missing the EAC and kitten BBQ meetings.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have an agenda now? Dang it I have got to stop missing the EAC and kitten BBQ meetings.

You are supposed to bring the Deviled eggs to the next meeting, btw.

 

[Belk]

You are supposed to bring the Deviled eggs to the next meeting, btw.

Figures. Do you know what devil embryos are going for on the open market these days?

 

[keith99]

I disagree on taxing charitable donations of any kind.

I agree that creationism has no place in secular schools nor the Atheist agenda.

It is not just charitable contributions that are not taxed. The Church pays no property tax.

I'm actually OK on that for the Church proper.

I'm not OK with it for Church based businesses.

I'm torn when it comes to school or daycare that are associated with a Church.

When I said the Church is not taxed on property I meant for the Church proper. On other things it varies. I think now in most states the Tax code more or less reflects my feelings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Figures. Do you know what devil embryos are going for on the open market these days?

I heard the market is on fire.

 

[Belk]

I heard the market is on fire.

 

[Loudmouth]

It is not just charitable contributions that are not taxed. The Church pays no property tax.

I'm actually OK on that for the Church proper.

I'm not OK with it for Church based businesses.

I'm torn when it comes to school or daycare that are associated with a Church.

When I said the Church is not taxed on property I meant for the Church proper. On other things it varies. I think now in most states the Tax code more or less reflects my feelings.

As long as churches don't run a large profit from year to year and stay out of political campaigning/fundraising, I am fine with tax-free status for churches.

 

[Eudaimonist]

As long as churches don't run a large profit from year to year and stay out of political campaigning/fundraising, I am fine with tax-free status for churches.

Me too. I see the tax-free status as an effort to allow small, charitable churches form the core of religious community life. It would be damaging to these communities if churches had to close down due to being taxed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Loudmouth]

Me too. I see the tax-free status as an effort to allow small, charitable churches form the core of religious community life. It would be damaging to these communities if churches had to close down due to being taxed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Exactly. Many church goers are not people of means, and so it makes zero sense to tax their earnings twice for something that they do not intend to make a profit on.

At the same time, churches do need to play by the rules and not become entities that can be taxed, such as businesses or political action committees. I think that is a fair agreement for everyone.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think you demands for proof is a cop out.

A cop out for what? You're the one who refuses to even acknowledge the burden of proof, presuming yourself to be exempt from it. That's a cop out.

 

[Colter]

A cop out for what? You're the one who refuses to even acknowledge the burden of proof, presuming yourself to be exempt from it. That's a cop out.

* I have acknowledged in several posts that we religionists can't prove the existence of a subjective spiritual experience using the scientific meathead.

* The OP addresses this difficulty in that people don't come to faith using a scientific method based on mathematical, at will repeatable test in a laboratory.

* Therefore, from the outset the discussion between a religionists and the unbeliever is based on an unresolvable premise, we don't have a math path that we can recount to the satisfaction of someone who purports to live only by scientifically provable processes.

* I notice that unbelievers don't always live by the standards of proofs (scientifically provable processes) that they hold religionists to in debates which is perfectly ok to do, it's even a forgone conclusion to the religionists in that we believe that you are already a child of God, a spiritual being having a material experience weather you have come to that realization yet or not. But no, we can't prove that to you using science.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

* I have acknowledged in several posts that we religionists can't prove the existence of a subjective spiritual experience using the scientific meathead.

And I have explained to you numerous times at this point that you don't just get to stop there. Your next step is to provide an means by which 'spiritual' truth may be gleaned, without stealing any groundwork from science, which you've categorically written off.

Until such time, your vacuous naked assertions can and will be dismissed out of hand.

One more time, so we're absolutely clear,

I DO NOT want you to attempt to use science to demonstrate your assertions about 'spiritual' truths. You have explicitly bereaved yourself of that privilege.

 

[BL2KTN]

I have acknowledged in several posts that we religionists can't prove the existence of a subjective spiritual experience using the scientific meathead.

Oh yes we can. We can take a look at your brain and watch it happening from a physical, real-world series of neuron firings.

HowStuffWorks "The Brain During Religious Experiences"
Religious Experiences Shrink Part of the Brain - Scientific American

 

[Aldebaran]

And I have explained to you numerous times at this point that you don't just get to stop there. Your next step is to provide an means by which 'spiritual' truth may be gleaned, without stealing any groundwork from science, which you've categorically written off.

You're making it sound like it's a set process, almost scientific, that we gain spiritual truth. Not so, my friend. Just as a man cannot tell a woman, "By what scientific process may I be able to methodically win your love?" Sounds ridiculous, but it's along the same basis as what you're asking for.

I DO NOT want you to attempt to use science to demonstrate your assertions about 'spiritual' truths. You have explicitly bereaved yourself of that privilege.

Now you're setting the rules by which a person can even explain something to you. Besides, I thought atheists were all about scientific methods for explaining everything.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

You're making it sound like it's a set process, almost scientific, that we gain spiritual truth. Not so, my friend. Just as a man cannot tell a woman, "By what scientific process may I be able to methodically win your love?" Sounds ridiculous, but it's along the same basis as what you're asking for.



Now you're setting the rules by which a person can even explain something to you. Besides, I thought atheists were all about scientific methods for explaining everything.

Once again...

I am already aware that you cannot demonstrate your assertions scientifically. You have categorically written off science as a means for gleaning 'spiritual' truth.

Once again...

You don't just get to stop there and expect to be taken seriously. Your next step is to provide a means by which 'spiritual' truth can be reliably gleaned, without stealing any groundwork from science.

Barring that, your epistemologically vacuous naked assertions can and will be dismissed out of hand.

 

[Aldebaran]

Once again...

I am already aware that you cannot demonstrate your assertions scientifically. You have categorically written off science as a means for gleaning 'spiritual' truth.

Once again...

You don't just get to stop there and expect to be taken seriously. Your next step is to provide a means by which 'spiritual' truth can be reliably gleaned, without stealing any groundwork from science.

Barring that, your epistemologically vacuous naked assertions can and will be dismissed out of hand.

Fine, let's go there. I'm glad you're willing to, since it's where the discussion belongs anyway. But I don't think you're gonna like it since it doesn't have anything "tangible" to hang your hat on.

God is a living being who makes His own decisions according to His own will. He grants to those who are seeking Him the means of understanding Him. So spiritual truth is something you are given by God. But you have to seek after God first in order for Him to grant you that understanding.