Dry and Uninspired wrote:

lacktone wrote:

Remaining non-denominational is not acceptable? There are non-denominational houses of worship you could test. I was married in one and to me the absence of the (unnecessary) pageantry and ceremony marking other legacy religions was refreshing. 

 
Non-denominational in what sense? Aren’t so-called non-denominational churches generally Evangelical?

Also, I’m not sure if we actually have any where I live (Slovenia).

That's not for me to know. If I was asked to opine about religion in general I'd say that their individual survivals are all based in evangelism to a greater or lesser extent. In other words, all have a character to them that can be irritating with enough exposure. I don't champion any of them. I consider the notion of worshiping a deity a one-on-one primacy with no reason in logic to channel it through a religion, or middleman so-to-speak. What I will acknowledge is the sense of community innate in religion and that, IMO, is a secular attraction first and spiritual one second.

Anyway, the non-denominational entry I experienced dispensed with the ceremony in its worship sessions and focused on the community with emphasis on the welfare of it's members. Being an atheist (wife a theist) it was a compromise I was comfortable making only because of its secular approach to worship. While in their company I got the feeling that it was a place where the congregation was comprised of people who were done with the more traditional, legacy religions. My upbringing was Catholic and by 8 years old I wanted out of it. I can't possibly be the only person who felt that way. That's how I can contrast the non-denominational I experienced.

1. Is there any way to argue against it from a natural law perspective, and 
2. If this can be done without first subjecting oneself to the drugs themselves?

Altered, impaired, incapacitated, high, transcendent, out of it, left of center, whacked-out, pick your semantic. Stoned is stoned. I find reality the better form of escapism. You can pick your compass heading and there will always be something of interest between you and the horizon on that radial. Chemically speaking, you're not going to be lucid enough to have a legitimate claim on cognizance. I find it to be a cop-out. I also find people who alter their lucidity selfish. 

joewaked wrote:

I’m not sure if this is the appropriate place in the Forum. Please move this post if it’s not.

I have been getting into (in-person) conversations with atheists and have found it difficult to develop practical “road maps” for these discussions.

Back in 1990, when I was moving from Protestantism to Catholicism, the material I found most helpful were conversion stories as told by men like Hahn and Matatics, and apologetic writings/debates by Keating, Madrid, Matatics and Akin. Along the way, I found solid, older, Catholic books that presented theology in systematic structures.

When explaining my decision to Protestant friends and family, I used approaches/strategies (depending on the subject) developed as a result of the apologetics learned from the gents above. Obviously, coming from a non-Catholic tradition, I was quite familiar with the more anti-Catholic arguments and responding to them was not foreign to me.

Today, I am struggling with how to make cogent and thorough arguments against atheism (or for theism). This is despite reading books by Feser, Augros and others or watching Craig’s debates. I suppose what I’m trying to say is that their arguments come across so “academic” and complicatedly sophisticated.

I read TLS and loved it after reading it the 2nd and 3rd times. I want to tell the atheist, “you need to read this book because it’ll do a heck of a better job than I’m doing.” (I actually said that once and the reply was “if you can’t prove and explain God without referring me to a philosopher’s book...”)

Is there any better debates or apologetics material that can serve as more of a “How to” approach?

The average atheist isn't so poised for the sake of it. He or she is usually a well read person in the historicity of man and his archeological exhibits substantiating his or her position on theology. Also, he or she is usually of a logic that trades in proofs rather than faiths, and more

"...inferior moral imagination."

This is probably the most invalid, if not preposterous posit for a defense of a moral posture, or character, as I've ever laid eyes on. Childish is my first reaction.

Inferior - All too grossly relegated in opinion whereby no standard reference is available to qualify such a stance.
Moral - See "Inferior" above.
Imagination - Totally lacking honorable of otherwise stolid principle of universal appeal.

In the context Hart has assembled the three words above as self-defense for his treatment of Feser's and Bessette's book I'm galvanized and cannot put further eyes on his treatise. I'm observing this through a secular filter and not appealing to some moral code yet to lie in plain revelation as some standard any of these three people are resolving themselves in, or with. That's because there isn't one universal code to tap that isn't subject to tangential vectoring away from a core set of principles, aka lost to interpretation.

The death penalty is an odd feature of man's moral tampering whereby the moral of the story is to preserve what's moral through amoral acts. Internally conflicting, the greater good is the goal such that one amoral act against an open source of continued amoral acts is decidedly worthy of sanctioning. But, is death the only measure of relief? No, it isn't. This is where compassion is elicited to take on the task of sorting out which measure is best. The argument lies in the tit-for-tat where compassion is a contrivance in the face of the amoral act under judgement. Remove compassion and the death penalty becomes the obvious choice. Preserve it and the argument for an alternate means remains on the table for sorting out.

When passion and compassion come together in the argument to resolve the disposition of the amoral event, there will be no mutually agreeable resolve. Men will champion the high ground and that will be obvious as the line in the sand between them. This is why a secular form of resolution must

Conservative here.

May I risk saying that Trump is not a republican? He might be disguised behind a facade of it but otherwise he brings something to the office that lies wholly outside the partisan conventions America has become indoctrinated in.

Trump does not do politics yet he joined the game when it was exhibiting low esteem, was demonstrating poor performance and the choices the democratic machinery was championing was the less savory choice. In other words, America's electoral college chose to risk the POTUS to a man with a glass head rather than a women with hidden agendas of self-interest and history evidencing it.

Despite the conservative stance one might take pride in, it has to compromise now. Trump does not play the political game. He's a businessman who has suffered many failures and some minor victories but under it all he's just a trust-fund kid trying to do right the only way he knows how. He throws people at problems to see if goals can be achieved.

In business there's a creed: If the system works and goals are not achieved, change the people. If the people work and goals are not achieved, change the system. Trump knows at least this much and if you follow his methods he's following this creed. What we're seeing is the man testing for which aspect is broken; the system or the people. His methods are working.

I would wait and see what happens when he's gained enough information about the system and the people to begin the real task of shoring both up.