https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/7866
-
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:36 AM)
Did you even listen to the second half? I was gathering my thoughts on several sure, but saying I was struggling is a bit of an overstatement.
Also did you have a comment about the actual conversation? -
Vegas_Devil — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:22 AM)
I think once your nerves calmed a bit the conversation flowed a little better..
Now, back to your original OP:
I Challenged A National christian Radio Call In Show
Just consider how many people who were sitting on the fence, questioning their faith, heard me and realized I was honest and made sense. Must have been one or two out there somewhere
I hate to burst your bubble, but..
This is the equivalent of calling into The Rush Limbaugh Show and claiming that your use of facts must have converted a few conservatives
Those that listen to the show are pretty dead set in their beliefs.. They listen to shows like that for affrimnation not contemplation.
The discussion of the time/space continuum isn't the faith breaker that you might think it is..
Most Christians probably don't even give a sht about the subject, let alone actually having any part of their faith based on it.
And.. as others pointed out.. They handled you pretty well.
You really didn't do that much "challenging".
The conversation probably wouldn't have lasted as long as it did, if you did.
But, hey.. You got a free book out of the deal.. and a good claim to "fame".
Kudos to you.
(
.
)(
.
)
(
.
)(
.
)
. -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:45 AM)
Most Christians probably don't even give a sht about the subject.
That's part of the problem. Well said.
And the problem is that once you know that stars and planets form naturally and the it is possible for energy to be created with nothing more than gravity, you really start to wonder what a god would even do. Everything can be understand via natural cause, so what do he do?
And.. as others pointed out.. They handled you pretty well.
You mean by trying to get me to a point of saying god was a logical answer and not accomplishing that? Or by essentially giving up near the end after I started reinforcing how space/time warps and the start he was talking about may very well not exist? Right after that he just kind of begrudgingly says 'well if that's what you would hold to I only have one other question, would it be possible to have a final answer?' to which I agreed and reaffirmed that I don't believe because answers only have real value if you can demonstrate them as real.
To be fair, I handled them perfectly fine. That is not saying I proved anything to them, but he was trying to get me to a point of saying a god was a logical answer and he didn't. -
Vegas_Devil — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:19 AM)
They handled you pretty well.
You mean by trying to get me to a point of saying god was a logical answer and not accomplishing that?
No.
I just mean that they kept you well in check so that you never really said anything that contradicted or disproved their beliefs/what they were saying.
To be fair, I handled them perfectly fine
Not really.. It was their show. They kept control at all times. At no point did you ever knock their footing and gain the upper hand.
You only handled yourself eventually You were really shakey to begin with.
All in all, tho.. It was a good conversation.
I'll give you that.
(
.
)(
.
)
(
.
)(
.
)
. -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:44 AM)
you never really said anything that contradicted or disproved their beliefs
I don't claim to be able to do that. It has nothing to do with being an atheist. I simply addressed why there are aspects of reality that provide for a perfectly natural explanation and saying a god did it really doesn't add any information to the conversation. I do wish I had gotten in some additional detail for sure, but I did get those out there.
They kept control at all times. At no point did you ever knock their footing and gain the upper hand.
You did notice I asked permission to address certain topics right? I was perfectly willing to let them maintain control as it was their show. I had no interest in trying to dominate, I wanted to respond to anything they asked.
You were really shakey to begin with.
Wow my first every radio call and I was shakey to begin with but recovered???!!!! noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo -
Jonesy_1 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:06 AM)
Well I will say that once you got over your nerves at being on a live show you did put yourself across quite eloquently, but I think for you to say you challenged him was just a bit of an exaggeration. Other than that well done.
"Be safe, be happy, and don't let anyone make you afraid." David Coverdale -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 09:51 AM)
Thank you sir. I appreciate that, and I fully concede it was a little uncertain at first, although I wasn't shaky so much as just being really careful about what I said, (if that makes sense). I did feel much more comfortable later to just let things roll out.
By challenge, I meant more in terms of it being a challenge to call a national radio show and speak with an author with a level of confidence. And I do feel I posed some challenging ideas. He definitely wanted to get to the idea that the start of time would require a god, and then softened that to a cause, and after I had illustrated that gravity and time could be values taken to an infinite state, he sort of conceded the concept that I had at least a respectable reason not to accept a god as true. I'm not saying he agreed with me, but he more or less fell back to us mutually agreeing that we could learn more.
Overall, I felt it was a very respectable back and forth with perhaps some progress made. -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 03, 2017 04:26 PM)
Small update, after hearing from them and thanking them for their approach to the call, I'll likely call back during an appropriate upcoming show and will look forward to posting that as well.