Fun with priests (No. Not that kind of fun).

A preacher I ran into a few days ago at the YMCA re-initiated a discussion (theists vs atheist) we had a few days earlier. What fun I recapped the informal topics (his point and my counter-point) and re-addressed the scenario he had earlier run away from. He apparently had forgotten what a poor position he was in when he left and was a bit befuddled after him stumbling to try to find his argument and he faintly attempted to address his quagmire position. Didn’t take him long before he changed the topic and I played along as beating him over the head with his earlier assertion would be fruitless.

He introduced the all to common (and one of my favorite assertions) “Atheists don’t believe in anything.” My response was, “No. That is not correct. Some of us do believe in the supernatural; ghosts, spirits etc. However, I, and those I know depend on demonstrable facts to base our belief system. In short, I value truth based on facts. I have a higher standard of truth as I do not accept faith (belief without evidence) as an honest methodology to determine truth and not worthy to justify believing anything I would like to believe. I am not a superstitionalist.

He then attempted to assert the bible was real because it addressed things (like the name of a city) that are substantiated in other books. I used the all to common Spider-man must be real because it takes place in New York city. He then argued, Well, spider-man didn’t die for your sins. I responded, OK, let’s use Superman. Are you saying if an author writes a book in the Superman world where he dies for our sins Superman would be real. Visually troubled, - he again changed the subject.

He offered a few non sequitur assertions that I pointed out were not related and he moved on

Finally, in trying to rationalize a few of the biblical contradictions I introduced into the discussion, he agreed that we can not be sure the exact meaning of what the bible was telling us.

And. . . The real FUN begins:

I asked him to imagine we were both living in the year 1961. I tell you “I’m feeling really gay today. Let’s go suck some fags.” What am I telling you? He correctly noted. You’re happy let’s go smoke.

Great. Now, the year is 1981. I tell you “I’m feeling really gay today. Let’s go suck some fags.” Now what do I mean? yea, with some help he also got that correct. (Ok, he agreed with my interpretation)

Then I continued.

But it’s worse then that. Many years ago I was in Camp Roberts California (army) while I was there a guy from San Fransisco said, “Hey, I’ve got a great idea. Let’s go to Detroit.” I am from the Midwest and had never heard that expression and asked him why would we want to travel all the way to Detroit? That’s way to far away. He told me. “No. Go to Detroit means go downtown, find some hookers and get laid. For real, you did not know that?”
So phrases have vastly different meaning depending on not only WHEN you are but also WHERE you are. How can you trust anything from a complication of tenth hand correspondence to have any truth value when you can’t even accurately understand the content? He then noted many worlds used to make the bible had no knows definition.

He left but his firm handshake was greatly reduced to the point of defeated weakness. His smile had faded to a sullen expression of realizing his assertions of “truth” had less authority then he early asserted. There is a discussion that can be summed up as (teaching faith is not moral as it pollutes the mind leaving the “faithful” open to being deceived and making poor decisions.” etc. I have used this topic when chatting with a captive (waiting for a Helicopter Christening) priests but that priest I used that argument with was nearly in tears when he realized he was doing more harm then good to civilization.

Just curious? Has anybody ever hear of "Going to Detroit" as having the meaning of going downtown to find a hooker and get laid?" He was the only person I have ever known to use that phrase. And no. I don't spend money in that fashion.