(September 22, 2016 at 1:26 pm)Drich Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 12:05 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Drich never crosses the line. There's no reason to ban him.

What Bob-E is really asking is why do you all allow a Christian to beat you So badly in a debate? Other atheist sites do not allow this.

You have not beaten me at all. All you have done is be condescending and you have a massive superiority complex. If you want a debate, then why don't we debate evolution in all its forms.

However, debating evolution with someone religious is like teaching a statue to use sign language. A nice video sums up debating a evolution to a creationist, and the creationist is someone called "baldrick." Damn!!! Are you bald Drich?

I just finished a book by Jared Diamond (the Guns, Germs, and Steel guy) called The World Before Yesterday, where he compares various aspects of hunter-gatherer societies with modern ones.  He spends a whole chapter on religion.  Here is an excerpt.

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/13/jared_di...religious/

It's a fascinating book all around.

(September 22, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 21, 2016 at 11:49 am)Whateverist Wrote:  

Of course by that standard, as you point out in the example I quoted, so are a lot of non-believers.  We just don't hope for un-natural mechanisms as explanations for observed phenomena or an ever-ever land afterlife.

Oh I know. I was specifically referring to the religious context when I wrote that line. I meant us religious folks are people of hope in that we hope the our religion is true even though there is no concrete proof.  

But yes, I'm sure every person, or at least most people, have hope for certain things to be true that they can't prove.

Thanks for your post, Catholic Lady. Out of curiosity, I've heard practitioners of religious faith, such as William Lane Craig and James White, say that their religion provides them with an objective basis for morality.  However, if there is no concrete proof for the truth of their religion, then is it more accurate for them to say that their religious morality is faith-based, not objectively based? Thanks.

(September 22, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I meant us religious folks are people of hope in that we hope the our religion is true even though there is no concrete proof.  

You, my dear, need to study up on the Church Doctors! Bad Catholic! Bad!

RobertE Wrote:Well, I am back. I just have one question. Who the fuck is Drich, and if he is a religious nut, then I thank my lucky stars I am not like him. I can be a pain in the ass at times, I know that. However, how do you put up with such moronic and condescending behaviour? Fuck, if I was an admin, I'd ban his ass all day.

Drich is the most egregious example of the Dunning Kruger Effect that I've ever seen, but that's not against the rules.

Some days he makes me think we should have a rule against excessive use of smilies, though....

(September 22, 2016 at 10:51 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 1:23 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: Oh I know. I was specifically referring to the religious context when I wrote that line. I meant us religious folks are people of hope in that we hope the our religion is true even though there is no concrete proof.  

But yes, I'm sure every person, or at least most people, have hope for certain things to be true that they can't prove.

Thanks for your post, Catholic Lady. Out of curiosity, I've heard practitioners of religious faith, such as William Lane Craig and James White, say that their religion provides them with an objective basis for morality.  However, if there is no concrete proof for the truth of their religion, then is it more accurate for them to say that their religious morality is faith-based, not objectively based? Thanks.

To you and others it would definitely make more sense to say it is faith based. But when a person has such a strong faith in their religion, they believe that their religion IS an objective truth. And when that "objective truth" gives them a basis for morality, then it would make sense that they see that basis as objective as well. 

I can't speak for the men you refer to, but for myself, that's how I feel. I believe that my faith, which I see as being objectively true, provides me with an objective moral basis. 

And you are correct that we don't have concrete proof to show that it's all true, but the sense of certainty for the believer is still there. Again, it's like with my husband. Perhaps that's an example you can better relate to. I don't have scientific proof that he loves me, but I truly 100% have faith that he does. If someone were to ask me if my husband loving me is an objective truth or merely my opinion, I would tell them he absolutely does. That it is objectively true. Even though I can't provide concrete proof of it to show you.

(September 23, 2016 at 10:53 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

(September 22, 2016 at 10:51 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thanks for your post, Catholic Lady. Out of curiosity, I've heard practitioners of religious faith, such as William Lane Craig and James White, say that their religion provides them with an objective basis for morality.  However, if there is no concrete proof for the truth of their religion, then is it more accurate for them to say that their religious morality is faith-based, not objectively based? Thanks.

To you and others it would definitely make more sense to say it is faith based. But when a person has such a strong faith in their religion, they believe that their religion IS an objective truth. And when that "objective truth" gives them a basis for morality, then it would make sense that they see that basis as objective as well. 

I can't speak for the men you refer to, but for myself, that's how I feel. I believe that my faith, which I see as being objectively true, provides me with an objective moral basis. 

And you are correct that we don't have concrete proof to show that it's all true, but the sense of certainty for the believer is still there. Again, it's like with my husband. Perhaps that's an example you can better relate to. I don't have scientific proof that he loves me, but I truly 100% have faith that he does. If someone were to ask me if my husband loving me is an objective truth or merely my opinion, I would tell them he absolutely does. That it is objectively true. Even though I can't provide concrete proof of it to show you.

Thank you for your response.  I think I understand. For individuals who have a strong faith in their religion, that religion is a part of who they are: it is like a nerve that connects them to something deeper.  This deeper connection is so strong and loving and although it cannot be rationally proven, it feels so real and genuine that it must be the case that it is objective.  I hope that I have accurately understood you. If I have not, then I apologize for my thickness.  Thanks for your time, patience, and attention.

(September 23, 2016 at 11:18 am)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(September 23, 2016 at 10:53 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: To you and others it would definitely make more sense to say it is faith based. But when a person has such a strong faith in their religion, they believe that their religion IS an objective truth. And when that "objective truth" gives them a basis for morality, then it would make sense that they see that basis as objective as well. 

I can't speak for the men you refer to, but for myself, that's how I feel. I believe that my faith, which I see as being objectively true, provides me with an objective moral basis. 

And you are correct that we don't have concrete proof to show that it's all true, but the sense of certainty for the believer is still there. Again, it's like with my husband. Perhaps that's an example you can better relate to. I don't have scientific proof that he loves me, but I truly 100% have faith that he does. If someone were to ask me if my husband loving me is an objective truth or merely my opinion, I would tell them he absolutely does. That it is objectively true. Even though I can't provide concrete proof of it to show you.

Thank you for your response.  I think I understand. For individuals who have a strong faith in their religion, that religion is a part of who they are: it is like a nerve that connects them to something deeper.  This deeper connection is so strong and loving and although it cannot be rationally proven, it feels so real and genuine that it must be the case that it is objective.  I hope that I have accurately understood you. If I have not, then I apologize for my thickness.  Thanks for your time, patience, and attention.

Yes, that's a good way of putting it. Thank you for the mutual respect!

(September 21, 2016 at 2:38 pm)Drich Wrote: Prayer is asking God to change your mind about you lot in life to benfit His will. (God use these headaches whatever way you can so I may have a deeper connection or understand of who you are)

Petition is you trying to get or convince God to change you life's circumstance. (God my head hurts, take away these head aches. Do so and I will follow you. Don't and I will know there is no God.)

That you have no idea how crazy you appear to everyone on this forum is a constant enjoyment to me. Slightly scary as well if I try to imagine you as a real life person.