The Perfect Argument

@secondson said
For the sake of discussion let's assume there is such a being, and we have His book that tells us how, who, what and why.

For the sake of discussion, in the scenario you describe [where "there is such a being, and we have His book that tells us how, who, what and why" and we believe this to be so], both Ghost of a Duke and I would probably be religionists in accordance with the revelation and instructions laid out in the "book" you mentioned.

@suzianne said
How can a "lifetime" membership card be "expired"?

Just asking. 🙂

It was waffle.

@caissad4 said
Over 30 years ago at the San Antonio chess club I got into a discussion with an atheist who just happened to be the lifelong best friend of the pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Antonio. He spilled the beans to me about his friend being a "pretend" Christian. Three years later the pastor had to resign in disgrace when it became public knowledge.

How did the pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Antonio allow his “pretence” at being a Christian to become public?

@secondson said
That's a loaded question.

Ok, so you're an atheist, right? (Rhetorical question)

For the sake of discussion let's assume there is such a being, and we have His book that tells us how, who, what and why.

Seems simple enough to me! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Walking along, see a turd, skip around it, whistle a tune, carry on...

@divegeester said
How did the pastor of the First Baptist Church of San Antonio allow his “pretence” at being a Christian to become public?

I don't know for certain but I did tell as many people about it as possible. My brother had a girlfriend at the time whose family were longtime members of that church. Nah, she did not believe me when I told her.
Maybe his atheist best friend felt morally obligated to tell others about this deception. His name was Rev. Jimmy Allen, if memory serves.

@secondson said
There's no such thing coming from anyone posting in this forum, and how can there be? No one is perfect.

With that in mind, from my perspective, the idea is to formulate an environment where ideas and beliefs can be discussed as objectively as possible.

That means keeping your personal feelings about your debate opponent to yourself. Your insults, derogatory remarks a ...[text shortened]... flawed fellow man, or woman as the case may be.

Other positive additional comments are welcomed.

An interesting suggestion, to host an objective discussion without motivations creeping in. This would be possible if the topic were, for example, the composition of Jupiter's gasses. There is no human factor involved in that. However, wherever beliefs about humanity are involved, there is necessarily a subjective element which cannot be ignored without detriment. Especially where the beliefs in question are, broadly speaking, religious or spiritual beliefs, beliefs about man's destiny or purpose in life.

Christianity would be uninteresting as a belief system if there were no promise of personal immortality embedded in it. Belief in the existence of a soul which survives death, and the prospect of eternal heaven or hell, is essential to get Christianity off the ground as a belief system; if there is no soul, there is no need of a saviour/redeemer. Take away the motivation to gain a personal heaven and avoid a personal hell, and what's left of it? A moral code, some dramatically embellished history, and a bronze-age myth about how the world came to be; one could get all that from Homer or Gilgamesh or the Upanishads or dozens of other ancient writings.

So, yes, drop the personal insults and invective; but to exclude motivation from the discussion is to miss the essentially human aspect of spirituality. Especially where there is reason to suspect that the real underlying motivation for accepting a belief system in the first place is not the one which is offered to rationalize that belief system when challenged to justify it.

@fmf said
For the sake of discussion, in the scenario you describe [where "there is such a being, and we have His book that tells us how, who, what and why" and we believe this to be so], both Ghost of a Duke and I would probably be religionists in accordance with the revelation and instructions laid out in the "book" you mentioned.

No, according to the book you'd have a choice.

@caissad4 said
I don't know for certain but I did tell as many people about it as possible. My brother had a girlfriend at the time whose family were longtime members of that church. Nah, she did not believe me when I told her.
Maybe his atheist best friend felt morally obligated to tell others about this deception. His name was Rev. Jimmy Allen, if memory serves.

It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest. I think there is plenty of evidence of insincere people holding church leadership offices all over the world in order to secure personal gain or power and use it for nefarious purposes.

@moonbus said
An interesting suggestion, to host an objective discussion without motivations creeping in. This would be possible if the topic were, for example, the composition of Jupiter's gasses. There is no human factor involved in that.

If Jupiter’s gasses had been previously examined, documented and published and accepted as fact, over a lifetime’s work by one or a group of scientists who’s careers had been defined by that work....and this work was being challenged by some new methods, then I’m pretty sure there would be a lot of personal interest and therefore a “human factor” would be involved.

@divegeester said
Walking along, see a turd, skip around it, whistle a tune, carry on...

Never a defense of The Book a troll makes.

@secondson said
Never a defense of The Book a troll makes.

Do you feel that labelling me a “troll” somehow shores up your arguments in here Joseph?

@secondson said
That's a loaded question.

Ok, so you're an atheist, right? (Rhetorical question)

For the sake of discussion let's assume there is such a being, and we have His book that tells us how, who, what and why.

Seems simple enough to me! 🤷🏻‍♂️

Not a 'loaded' question, a 'difficult' question.

@secondson said
No, according to the book you'd have a choice.

I don't think people can choose to believe in supernatural beings and supernatural things if they do not find them credible. I think it's cod-psychology to claim that people can or do "decide" to believe or "choose" to believe when it comes to the supernatural realm.

I think people realize that they are superstitious and that certain beliefs in magic or religious mythology fit or appeal to what may be described as their gut feelings.

After that, they cling to every scrap of confirmation bias that comes their way and, for many, this makes their beliefs essentially inescapable and invulnerable to "choice".

@moonbus said
An interesting suggestion, to host an objective discussion without motivations creeping in. This would be possible if the topic were, for example, the composition of Jupiter's gasses. There is no human factor involved in that. However, wherever beliefs about humanity are involved, there is necessarily a subjective element which cannot be ignored without detriment. Espe ...[text shortened]... ace is not the one which is offered to rationalize that belief system when challenged to justify it.

One thing missing from the formula here is the benefits gained from a religion in the here and now, the changes wrought in one's daily life.