After listening to the latest Atheist Experience I got thinking about something...

I think even the layman can acknowledge that some arguments against god or a god are only arguments that go against an all good or all loving god, etc. Like the problem with evil. Maybe there is a god who is evil. Or before you post it, maybe the god of the bible is evil. Regardless, lets say that god exists and after mankind falling away from his will only spiritually minded men and women can be attracted to him and know him. To use an analogy, I am a heterosexual male. Some say that if I were gay it would be a choice, not natural. They might reason that they see no practical sense in why I would be attracted to the same sex, probably using their own personal experience as a reference point. But I am sure most atheist here would agree that if I were gay that it would most likely be my natural orientation. So why couldn't an atheist see that they might not understand a spiritually minded person from their own experience but that doesn't disqualify that persons spiritual orientation.

1 Corinthians 2:14 says that the physical man does not accept things of the spirit of god because they are foolishness to him. Sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy right? But what if spirituality transcends the nature of humans. This could be the "evidence" faith is built on. Evidence is meant very loosely there. If someone is gay, you don't question how he came to that conclusion. If someone has a unbreakable faith in god we assume it is based on so many faults. I say that as one who is envious of that faith because I wish I strongly believed in god. So is it possible that when we make objections against god like, could he make a burrito too hot to eat? If not then he is not all powerful, is basically akin to Ali-G asking Buzz Aldrin if man will walk on the sun one day.

Thoughts?

Because there is no reason to think that "spiritual" revelations are trustworthy sources of information, and many to think that they are not.

Big difference my friend.
Sexual orientation is mostly biological, therefore natural.
Religious Indoctrination is mostly psychological child abuse of the highest order.
We will not feed the delusion.

"Spiritual" doesn't mean anything except metaphorically, as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be an excuse for drawing conclusions based on emotions and experiences rather than on reliable evidence.

Until I see something that shows it's not all just their imagination, I'll continue to assume it to be the most likely explanation. But they can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone. And I'd rather they didn't force their kids to believe it either.

won2blv : "Some say that if I were gay it would be a choice, not natural. They might reason that they see no practical sense in why I would be attracted to the same sex, probably using their own personal experience as a reference point. But I am sure most atheist here would agree that if I were gay that it would most likely be my natural orientation. So why couldn't an atheist see that they might not understand a spiritually minded person from their own experience but that doesn't disqualify that persons spiritual orientation."

Well , if we could rewind the clock - say 100,000 years - and imagine that the concept of god has not reared it's cosmic head into human culture yet. Let history play itself out again. Do you think we would rediscover Jehovah or Krishna ? Or would we discover a whole new set of characters? Maybe paternalistic, maybe maternalistic this time? Perhaps skip the process and evolve an iron age secular world?

Now imagine two homosexuals in this hypothetical paleolithic. I think they would rediscover what many modern gay people figure out on their own.

This thought experiment leads me to a conclusion that religion is of the human imagination and homosexuality has a basis in nature.

(July 6, 2016 at 4:37 am)ignoramus Wrote: Big difference my friend.
Sexual orientation is mostly biological, therefore natural.
Religious Indoctrination is mostly psychological child abuse of the highest order.
We will not feed the delusion.

My point is that not understanding it is not proof that it is not real

. . . trying to wade through the consecutive negatives to see if there is any there there . . .

(July 6, 2016 at 5:11 am)robvalue Wrote: "Spiritual" doesn't mean anything except metaphorically, as far as I'm concerned. It seems to be an excuse for drawing conclusions based on emotions and experiences rather than on reliable evidence.

Until I see somethings  that shows it's not all just their imagination, I'll continue to assume it to be the most likely explanation. But they can believe whatever they want, as long as they don't hurt anyone. And I'd rather they didn't force their kids to believe it either.

I get what you're saying, but do you get my point that not being able to think like a spiritual man would handicap you from being able to ponder things in a new light? I get that what I'm saying is almost circular. I am not trying to invent a new proof of god, its more just something I think about concerning people around me that seem to be more "spiritual." But hell, they could be like the people in church that fall to the ground and shake because everyone else is doing it

I have no idea what "spiritual" is. If I thought it was in any way a real thing, then sure.

I would define being spiritual, in reality, as being easily persuaded stuff is going on that really isn't.

Highly suggestible.

gullible springs to mind too