https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/7866
-
Miscella — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 10:15 PM)
I think you're particularly silly given how you see religious violence even when there isn't any to be seen. Remember all those threads you started then mysteriously disappeared from when it was pointed out to you that the tragedy you were blaming on religion didn't actually have anything to do with religion? I do. You remind me a lot of a friend of mine who took art classes in college. All of a sudden, all she saw was art. Everywhere. Even "negative" art in the spaces between the lines. She was obsessed and so that's all she saw. Just like you with "religious violence." You hear about a murder on the news, and you immediately jump to the conclusion that it's religion's fault. Get a grip, you delusional nutbag.
-
Superdude6090 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 04:26 AM)
That's pretty harsh bro.
Since I consider ABR a troll and am sceptical that phone call is actually him I gave a trolling response.
The "mumbling stumbling f@ck " quote is a nod to Goodfellas and Joe Pesci dealing with the mentally challenged Spider:
I consider ABR to be like Spider.
My son has a speech impairment, always hurts to see how some people might treat him when he's older.
No offence was intended. -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:04 AM)
I agree that it was not detail heavy, but I did point out that aspects like gravity and time have values that approach infinity once gravity hits the level of a black hole or the singularity at the beginning of the universe. I tried repeating that as he seemed not to be understanding when I said time had no value at that point and was not the same sequence of events phenomenon that he repeated near the end. As such, we don't know that time had a "start" in the way he thinks a god would be required to start it.
What I do wish I had gotten into, was the concept that gravity acting on a void without matter can create energy, and you'll notice I did ask him for permission earlier in the conversation to explain just that. He was trying to keep the conversation on the concept of a "beginning of time" however and as it was his show I was doing him the favor of responding to his questions and not making it my own topic.
And of course I've read and listened to Sagan as well as many other sources. I said on the phone that I was not a professional cosmologist. I have no intention of projection credentials I do not have. He simply asked why I do not believe in a god, and the study of reality has never revealed a reason to accept that one is true. -
Cinemachinery — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 01:35 AM)
If that's you, cool on you for posting about it. They sort of kept you on the defensive the whole time with "what is proof/what would you accept/what is a good reason to believe" devices, but it was nice hearing it out.
"Experts say. Officials say. Scientists say. People aren't buying it so much anymore" - 'Bama -
AtheismBecauseReason — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 08:10 AM)
Thank you, and yes, I was letting them do their thing without trying to hard to force the conversation. You'll notice I did try to take the conversation is a more detailed direction twice and he redirected the conversation both times.
But, I was fine with that. It's his show, he was respectful and patient, and whether he is a published christian author or not, I wanted to take the opportunity to show that I have no reservation answering any question any theist might have.
There are several concepts I wish we would have gotten into and a few things I probably could have been a bit more clear on, but overall, I felt it went pretty well and I genuinely thank them for their time. -
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