You're viewing part of a thread.
Reply to "regardless of government size", part 2 of 2:
I don't want to make this a debate over definition, but that isn't anywhere close to the definition of secularism:
I was all ready to reply that the wiki article has been biased by secularists, but then I read it (well, I skimmed the beginning of it), and it seems largely agreeable, and supports my personal definition. The social trend of reduced church membership, and the growing trend of people to openly embrace atheism and agnosticism without a hint of shame, are both completely in line with people "seeking to conduct human affairs based on naturalistic considerations, uninvolved with religion." The article also notes that:
The term "secularism" has a broad range of meanings, and in the most schematic, may encapsulate any stance that promotes the secular in any given context.
That's awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
Atheism and agnosticism is not something to be ashamed about. People should only believe things in which their is sufficient evidence for, and there is insufficient evidence for religion. And atheism is not an embrace of Satan, we atheists don't believe in Satan either.
I know you believe Satan doesn't exist. You're in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
You're either with God or you're against Him. That's a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring. When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you're unaware that you're doing so — and even if you think that's impossible — that's what you're doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I'll refer you to my other post that had quotes from the founding fathers explicitly stating that the U.S. was not founded as a christian nation.
…which I rebutted. I wonder if you're missing some of my replies. (Edit: maybe I rebutted it after you wrote this.)
The delcaration of independence is not a legal document or part of american law.
It's the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity. I can't overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
I've spent the better part of two decades debating with christians online in various forums, so I have read quite a lot of it at this point.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? ("Neither" would be an invalid answer.)
That's awkward wording, but does indeed agree with my personal definition.
I don't think they match, but again definitions aren't really why I am here, so I will move on.
I know you believe Satan doesn't exist. You're in complete denial of the massive influence he has over you.
When you say "complete denial", do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying? Because if it is the former you are mistaken.
That's a really important concept that you seem to keep ignoring.
That's because I don't think it makes sense. I don't believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it's kind of like asking "are you rooting for team A or team B", but the sports teams* that you're talking about are all fictional. It just doesn't make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
* I know they aren't sports teams, but I couldn't think of a better analogy.
When you reject God, you embrace Satan — even if you're unaware that you're doing so — and even if you think that's impossible — that's what you're doing. And that most certainly is something to be ashamed about.
I'm embracing neither. I can't embrace something I don't believe in.
As for evidence, once you accept Christ, you will finally understand that abundant evidence is everywhere you look.
I know you don't think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren't good reasons.
It's the primary document to establish our culture and our national identity.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I can't overemphasize that point. When was the last time you read it?
This question is not relevant to the conversation, as it is just setting up for an ad hominem fallacy.
Do you suppose your motivation to do that was provided by God or Satan? ("Neither" would be an invalid answer.)
I'm sorry but the answer is "neither" whether you consider it valid or not. I am not a christian and therefore not bound to "christian logic" so to speak that would say that such a dichotomy is valid. My motivations are my own to the extent that an american can.
definitions aren't really why I am here, so I will move on.
Definitions are so important! Oftentimes we talk past each other, thinking we're arguing when we actually agree on 95% of the issue, but we're using different working definitions of our words, and misinterpreting each other accordingly.
When you say "complete denial", do you mean the kind of denial of that secretly knows some unfortunate truth, or literally denying?
I have no background in psychology, but I don't think denial necessarily involves secret knowledge. I just went to research the topic, and quickly remembered that I dislike the entire field of psychology, so I didn't get far. Sorry. But no, I don't pretend to know what you really know and what you don't. That's between you and God, not me. I just think you've intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I don't believe in either of the sides you are talking about. So it's kind of like asking "are you rooting for team A or team B", but the sports teams* that you're talking about are all fictional. It just doesn't make sense for me to say I am on a sports team that I think is made up.
That's a good analogy, and I understand your perspective. But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not. You're ignoring the spiritual warfare that underlies everything happening in our world, in our lives, and indeed in this very conversation. You're denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization, based on millennia of correspondence with and guidance from the Lord our God. You arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God's blessing, and what's far worse is you're arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself. That's why I say you're in denial. God does not like to be denied. But the Devil does, and seizes upon that denial to manipulate you.
The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn’t exist.
—Verbal Kint
I'm embracing neither. I can't embrace something I don't believe in.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
I know you don't think I was ever a christian, but when I was, I thought I had abundant evidence. But the closer I looked at my reasons for believing the more I realized they weren't good reasons.
I find that completely believable. You predicated your faith on faulty reasoning, and as a result, your faith was unstable. Solid faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all — that's what makes it faith. But when your faith is solid, you're then provided with the ability to see the abundant evidence for what it truly is. The key is that the evidence comes second, contingent on faith.
I think trying to single out a single document that defines a 246 year old country is a mistake, because no such document could possibly define such a long and chaotic history/country.
I'd say that's reasonable if I wasn't familiar with the US. But every child memorizes key lines from that single document, and learns all about how it made us the greatest country on earth. And every American refers back to it in common parlance, while discussing and debating a wide variety of issues. And that single document continues to influence all of our legislation and jurisprudence. So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
It's worth noting, though, that you mention that we're a 246 year old country, and it's 247 (welcome to 2023!), but more importantly I'd say most of what happened during those intervening years are far less important than what happened at the outset. Even if our state and federal governments were to topple, and a foreign army was to invade, American flags would still fly because our national character was established at the outset of our founding, and it cannot be destroyed.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn't be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
Definitions are so important!
Definitions are also defined by the way in which the majority of people use them. The word "yeet" was utter nonsense until enough people understood the word and its meaning to land itself a spot in dictionaries.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an "objective" answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don't see much point in talking about it.
That's between you and God, not me. I just think you've intentionally decided to refute God, and thereby unknowingly invited Satan to guide your thoughts.
I hate to repeat myself but this goes pretty close along the lines of what I said in one of the other threads, and that is that beliefs as I understand them are not a choice. So it simply doesn't make sense to say somebody has intentionally decided to refute god. Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not.
I know a lot of christians understand god to be good itself and satan to be the opposite, but that's not really how I see it. Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren't literal entities that exist. I am not pretending good and evil don't exist. They exist just as much as friendship does. It isn't anything physical or some being, it's a human label.
You're denying the foundational tenets of Western Civilization
So be it. If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems. There used to be a time when western civilization permitted slavery (and technically still does), so why would I treat it as perfect?
You arrogantly pretending you're somehow smarter than our ancestors who built this civilization with God's blessing
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it's very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don't need to be to discover such flaws. To put it in an analogy, I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it. He beats me basically every time. However, when he makes a mistake in the game I still have (on occasion) the ability to discover it, and very occasionally beat him. Yet I never say or pretend I am smarter than him.
you're somehow smarter than God Almighty Himself.
I can't say I am smarter than something I don't believe exists.
But you can, and you do. When you deny God, you embrace Satan. There is no third option.
The third option is that these beings simply do not exist.
faith cannot be predicated on reasons at all
And therefore I want none of it.
So in the case of the US, that single document really does define our culture.
Too much has happened in our country for that to be true.
and it's 247
Whoops! I should have paid slightly more attention to my google search result.
Out of curiosity, if it wouldn't be invasive, which state are you in (or from, or most familiar with)?
I'd rather not say at the risk of doxing myself, but I'll say I am from the north east coast.
So I hesitate to argue over definitions, because there is an "objective" answer so to speak, and from what I can tell you seem to use completely different definitions from the norm. So I don't see much point in talking about it.
If you ask a hundred people for the definition of any word, you'll get a hundred different definitions. Sure they'll be similar, but no two will likely be identical. Usually we assume similar is good enough. But when we disagree over a contentious topic, it can help to define our terms because they may be radically dissimilar.
For many such terms, the political Right and Left will both use their own flavor of definitions which are quite different from the other side's. I suspect that's what you're observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm. It's all too easy to think we disagree when in fact we mostly agree but are defining words differently.
Just as I cannot choose to become christian, you cannot choose to become muslim. We can choose what ideas we are exposed to and that can have an effect on us, but it is indirect at most.
I chose to become a Christian. Nobody found me and convinced me. I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice. And what's more, I'd say I repeatedly choose to be a Christian every time I struggle, every time my faith is tested, and every time I slip and sin. I turn to Christ and ask for forgiveness, again and again, and every time I choose to be Christian. Of course it's a choice, and you choose too.
Sure, good and evil exist but they are human concepts, human labels that we ascribe to actions. They aren't literal entities that exist.
Yes, they are human concepts, and yes these two concepts are distinct from the literal entities of God and Satan. But where do you think the two human concepts came from? Adam and Eve had to reflect on their expulsion, and conceive of concepts to describe the situation. So we all do, as we go through life. Just as the word "photosynthesis" describes a human concept which describes a real phenomenon, so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
If there are problems with the foundation of western civilization then there ought to be changes to fix the problems.
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
Listen, our politics are different, reflecting our different personal values, experiences, and understandings of the world. As a conservative, my raison d'être is to preserve Western Civilization (AKA Christendom). In all of our messages, most (all?) of what I've written comes down to that. To my view, it's crucial and nonnegotiable. Everything we have of any value at all comes from Western Civilization. It's destruction can result in nothing more than the fulfillment of end-times prophecy.
Humans stand on the shoulders of our ancestors through our ability to transfer knowledge from one generation to the next. Couple that with our ability to analyze history and hind sight, and it's very easy to discover flaws of the past. I am not saying or pretending I am smarter than previous generations because you don't need to be to discover such flaws.
I understand your perspective. But I also know we frequently think the past is flawed just because we don't understand it. Similar to how teens believe they know so much more than their parents, only to realize years later that they were wrong about pretty much everything.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today? When we look up at night, we see light pollution. Most of us have no clue what our own sky looks like. When we look out of our windows, most of us see buildings, cement, infrastructure, people, vehicles, and maybe a few landscaped trees and lawns. Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like. Maybe we visit a national park and snap a few photos for Instagram just to prove we were there.
Ancient peoples saw God's handiwork everywhere they looked, and it was breathtakingly jaw-dropping and truly awesome. We live in a world where we've built all of these things to constantly blind us from that. We have absolutely no idea, on average, what our own world looks like. Plato's Allegory of the Cave is what we've built all around ourselves. Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God, and read His wisdom and knowledge passed down to us from the ancients: the Bible.
If you see a mistake, it's probable you're evaluating an illusion.
I play chess a lot and have a friend who is significantly smarter than me at it.
You're fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven't had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I suspect that's what you're observing when you say my definitions are different from the norm.
Potentially, but at least in this case I believe the difference was over the word "secularists/secularism", and usually the best people able to define a group are those that are within the group. A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of "christian", and the same applies to secularists.
I sought it out, learned about it, read the Bible, and accepted Jesus. It was totally a choice.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
But where do you think the two human concepts came from?
Humans are social creatures by nature, and a part of that socialization is language. There was a need to describe actions that helped and hurt people, so the words good and evil came about. Or at least some version did, and then as each language evolved from some predecessor, it eventually turned into what it is today.
so true good and evil are predicated on our experiences contending with literal entities.
So it seems we are in agreement that "good" and "evil" exist at least in the form of concepts, so do you still hold to what you said earlier:
- "But the problem is that good and evil are entirely real, and it's absurd to pretend they're not."
I give you credit for at least admitting it. So often it seems like leftists are following a program to destroy western civilization, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time I've witnessed an admission of your willingness to do so.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to "burn the house down" as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
Why do you suppose ancient people were overall more religious than people today?
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that's a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
Most of us have no clue what our planet naturally looks like
I agree completely. If I had it my way, there would be significant changes to our infrastructure to reduce the light pollution, regular pollution and to add more green to our cities. Unfortunately this isn't a game of sim city. This is a big topic, so if you are interested, I'll leave you with this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOc8ASeHYNw
Our only hope of knowing truth is to look to God
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
If you see a mistake, it's probable you're evaluating an illusion.
That's a very broad generalization.
You're fortunate to have a chess partner. I haven't had one in ages. I miss playing it.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven't had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what's your ELO if you have one?
Most of our ongoing disagreements are predicated an underlying problem that's eloquently explained in Tucker Carlson's interview of Vivek Ramaswamy starting at 33:53 and going through the end of the video, so ~11 minutes long. I'm curious to hear your perspective on that.
A christian is generally more qualified and familiar with the definition of "christian", and the same applies to secularists.
I see why you say that, but Christians are entitled to a word describing the phenomenon of declining Christianity, and the word "secularism" has been used for decades if not centuries to describe that. If you're aware of a more appropriate word, I'm all ears.
That part was a choice, but that is not the totality of the process of coming to believe something. Everything after that was to my understanding not a choice.
Again, I make the choice to be a Christian on an ongoing basis. Every time I look to Christ for guidance, every time I follow Christ, every time I repent, etc., is a choice. I choose to be a Christian repeatedly every single day. The Devil continually tempts me to stray, and every time I choose God. It's a choice, through and through.
I think you are exaggerating what I said. If the foundation of your house is infested with termites, the correct thing to do is to fix the problem. There are a million different ways to do so, but you have jumped to "burn the house down" as the solution where I have not suggested it. In my opinion the solution it so determine if the foundation is salvageable, if it is, then it is time to bring in an exterminator to deal with the pressing issue, and then to replace any beams that have gone too far. If instead the problem is not salvageable it is instead time to build a new, better house, and then move into it once it is ready. At no point should the house be burned down with people inside of it like you seem to think I am suggesting. I think civilization should still exist, and would very much prefer that.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God. There's nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God. God is not a problem to be fixed. So I'm sorry if I twisted your "try to salvage the house, or replace it if necessary" with "burn the house down", but no house could possibly be better (in any way) than the house of the Lord our God. Your entire line of thinking is rooted in your denial of God, which is the sin of sins.
Because humans are intensely uncomfortable not having the answers to things, so they try to explain the unknown through any means possible, including through incorrect answers. Nowadays we have an explanation for lightning, so nobody blames Zeus anymore.
I don't know if anyone ever actually believed in Zeus, but the concept is 100% incomparable to the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who is real and present today as He ever was. God doesn't exist to provide answers to mysteries. We exist because He exists. If we don't know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct. What's crucial to understand is that it remains correct once science discovers the method by which God works. Lightning is a great example. It's created by God to work in a certain way, and we've deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
The space of unknown things in which god resides shrinks more and more the longer we study the universe. And that's a big part of why more and more people are less and less religious.
If you're right that some people only see God as a useful crutch to blame things on, then that's reasonable. But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God's glory, so it doesn't seem like a very compelling answer.
Given that you believe the only source of truth is the christian god, how do you contend with science, a process that never turns to the bible or invokes the name of god?
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God. Einstein is the most notable example. Science is the practice of using our God-given abilities to observe and describe the mechanisms of God's creation. Science is in every way predicated upon God.
I have two friends whom I regularly play with, usually daily-timed games, and then another two of complete randoms. I usually have an ELO of about 1100, but have been sitting around 1050 for a bit just because I haven't had much ability to concentrate this last year or so. Our of curiosity, what's your ELO if you have one?
I don't. Back when I played regularly, I didn't care about such formalities. I would now if I picked it back up.
I'm curious to hear your perspective on that.
Ramaswamy's response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get. Him saying that the LGBTQ+ is a bunch of groups is just a thinly veiled effort to weaken the power of the LGBTQ+ through propoganda. He wants to act like republicans are the victims when the LGBTQ+ receive death threats and attacks on a routine basis. He also just straight up doesn't understand much about the LGBTQ+. Basically the whole thing he uses nonstop strawman fallacies. He has a fundamental lack of understanding of everything he criticized through the whole thing. And in the end it's culture war bullshit.
If you're aware of a more appropriate word, I'm all ears.
"The decline of christianity"
Every time I look to Christ for guidance
Even if we have free will that isn't an instance of you changing your mind of your own free will. These things you list are just examples of you performing actions that are in line with your beliefs.
The foundation of Western civilization is not, and cannot, be infested with termites, because the foundation of Western civilization is the Lord our God.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god. There are a lot more things that go into it than that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_civilization
If you're going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
There's nothing you can say to legitimately criticize God.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer. I can conceptualize a world in which that does not happen, and therefore a failure of god. And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
If we don't know how something works, of course we can ascribe the answer to God, and that answer is always correct.
That's a terrible thing to do because it is a form of lying to yourself. In the end it wasn't Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground. Answering "god" in that context was wrong. We shouldn't just blame a mystery on a bigger mystery.
It's created by God to work in a certain way, and we've deduced the mechanism by which it happens.
No part of the explanation for how lightning works involves god.
But it misses the vast all-encompassing nature of God's glory, so it doesn't seem like a very compelling answer.
People prefer real answers rather than ones that just blame a bigger mystery.
The most intelligent scientists all believe in God.
Not only is that not true (because you added the "most intelligent" qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
https://assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2009/11/Scientists-and-Belief-1.gif
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/11/05/scientists-and-belief/
If god really is the answer for everything all around us we would expect those who understand the universe better than the average population to understand god better than the average population. Yet we see the opposite.
Einstein is the most notable example.
He was a really weird deist, not a christian. And he was from a time when it was far less socially acceptable to be an atheist. So that's not really much of an argument.
I would now if I picked it back up.
Go for it! It's pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Ramaswamy's response to the pansexual women is about as out of touch as one can get.
I wasn't referring to that in particular. I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video. The point was about western civilization, the insidious project to undermine it, and our duty to defend it. That point is foundational to much of our disagreement. It sounds like you stopped watching before he even got to the point.
"The decline of christianity"
Yeah, but that misses the bigger picture. It's not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism. Rather it's a secular movement driven by Satan's success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
I disagree that the foundation of western civ is solely placed on god.
This is one of those ways in which Wikipedia tends to be secular. It says in the intro that Western civilization is "linked" to Christiandom. That's misleading. Western civilization is Christiandom. The only difference is we don't call it that anymore. But everything that followed from Christiandom is built upon Christiandom as an extension of Christiandom. Though to the article's credit, it does later state that:
[…] Western civilization, which throughout most of its history, has been nearly equivalent to Christian culture.
That's close to accurate. In truth the two are inseparably identical, which is why Satan hates Western civilization, that that in turn is why you've been convinced to believe you want to contribute to the project of undermining Western civilization.
If you're going to look through this, I recommend spending extra time on the section explaining the enlightenment.
I'm not sure exactly what points you're referring to here. Skimming through it, I'm pretty sure I already know all of these details. The only change I'd make is to emphasize God's role in all of these things, and His importance to all of these historical figures.
Sure I can, god, according to your worldview, created a world in which children get cancer.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite, and if yours was too then you'd understand why certain children are given cancer. It's not for us to try to understand. It's for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
And before you say I think I know better than god, in reality I know better than the humans who made god up.
At some point, immanently I hope, you'll realize how absurdly wrong you are about this. You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly. I know they make it feel good when you believe them, but they're lying to you.
In the end it wasn't Zeus who causes lightning, it is a build up of a difference in energy between clouds and the ground.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. It's like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that it's nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Let's say you were to throw a basketball, and make a basket. Some scientists observe it, and say "That's interesting. Let's figure out what that's all about." So they observe you throwing the basketball. They measure your movements, the wind movements, the ball's PSI, the height of the basket, the material compositions of the ball and basket, just all of it. And then they formulate a theory which postulates how the ball goes through the basket. And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous. God is in control, no matter what your demons tell you.
Not only is that not true [that the most intelligent scientists all believe in God] (because you added the "most intelligent" qualifier), but given that scientific literacy is correlated with atheism, I find it to be rather damning for religion:
First off, it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent. I'm trying to word that so as not to offend you, and it's hard. Sorry. My point here is not to insult you, but just to explain my statement about the most intelligent scientists.
Secondly, the scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that they're disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball. So yes, atheists are more likely to become scientists than pastors. We don't need to consult any studies to know that's true.
Go for it! It's pretty easy to play against others nowadays now that there are so many popular chess sites. chess.com and lichess are pretty decent.
Maybe eventually, but not today. I have too much else on my plate. But thank you for letting me know it's easy to play online. That's something I hadn't considered.
I was referring to the big-picture point he made in the whole last 11 minutes of the video.
I am aware that isn't the focus that you had in mind, but it was one of the bigger reactions I had to it. My overall view is that he is deeply out of touch and incapable of using anything other than a strawman argument. He fundamentally does not understand what he is criticizing.
It's not as if people are rejecting Christ and converting to Judaism.
That's not what "The decline in chrstianity" describes.
Rather it's a secular movement driven by Satan's success at convincing a vast swath of the populace that God is imaginary.
That's just not happening.
Western civilization is Christiandom.
No it's not. Western civ is a pretty arbitrary phrase that is used in a million different ways, and christianity is only a subset of that. Words and phrases change over time, and this is one of those things that has changed.
the project of undermining Western civilization.
There is no such project, at least how I define western civilization.
I'm not sure exactly what points you're referring to here. Skimming through it, I'm pretty sure I already know all of these details.
If you're aware of all the details then you should also be aware that the enlightment (a huge part of western civilization) was the birth of science, the scientific method, and secularism. Meaning christendom != western civ.
It is the height of hubris to criticize God. His wisdom is infinite
I am criticizing a fictional, human made character. As a result of being human made, there is no such infinite wisdom.
if yours was too then you'd understand why certain children are given cancer.
There is no good reason.
It's not for us to try to understand. It's for us to accept in our worship and prayer.
How have you determined that you aren't worshiping an evil god if you haven't questioned god? How do you know that it isn't the case that both god and satan are evil?
You have demons whispering lies into your ears, and you believe them unquestioningly.
Nobody is whispering anything in my ears, metephorically or literally, whichever way you mean. And I question everything before I believe it.
Comparing Zeus to God is far worse than apples and oranges, because at least apples and oranges are both fruits. It's like comparing icebergs to smartphones. They have absolutely nothing whatsoever in common, to the point that it's nonsensical to even try to compare them.
Both Yahweh and Zeus are fictional characters which people irrationally use to explain why things work. That was the basis for my comparison and therefore makes it a valid comparison.
And then people start to deny that you exist because they have the theory of how the basketball goes through the basket. The whole idea is absolutely ridiculous.
That's not really how that works.
it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent.
That's not true.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
scientific disciplines are certainly attractive to atheists who want to devote their lives to pretending that they're disproving God by collecting the evidence of the basketball.
That is absolutely not why people do science. They do so because they want to learn more about the universe, do some good for humanity and advance it. Do you even know a single scientist?
I am criticizing a fictional, human made character. As a result of being human made, there is no such infinite wisdom.
Imagine for once that you are completely wrong about this belief of yours. Yes, it's the height of hubris. If we know nothing else, we know at very least that our Creator lives.
How have you determined that you aren't worshiping an evil god if you haven't questioned god? How do you know that it isn't the case that both god and satan are evil?
For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.
To choose just one of many possible answers.
Nobody is whispering anything in my ears, metephorically or literally, whichever way you mean. And I question everything before I believe it.
I mean literally. You may look at your shoulder, expecting to see no demon, while maybe picturing the cutesy BSD mascot, and sure enough you don't see one sitting on your shoulder. "See?" you reassure yourself, "no demon." You then recall that you've never seen the BSD mascot running around anywhere IRL, and conclude that demons must not exist.
How sure are you that you do a good job questioning everything before you believe it? Is it possible that you've made an error?
Demons do not look like cutesy cartoon characters, and indeed they're not visible to the human eye (at least not to mine). As with all extant spiritual entities, we can know they exist despite our inability to see them.
Are you just as quick to deny that dark matter exists?
That's not true. [Re: "it's self-evidently true, as anyone who denies God cannot be said to be very intelligent."]
You said you were willing to question your beliefs, so I urge you to question this. I think it underlies the rift between us.
You want to see yourself as a reasonably intelligent person, and you want to cling to a state of mind which you believe to be shared by other intelligent people.
But I ask you, are you so sure that it's intelligent to reject God? Consider the following:
According to Pew, actively religious people tend to be far happier. Is it intelligent to want to be happy? Could this effect possibly be a quantitative measurement of God's blessings? And is it intelligent to want to be happy?
Again, I ask you: is it intelligent to want to be happy?
