shakran

These posts are getting entirely too long, so you'll excuse me I hope if I cut out a bunch of stuff from yours and only answer the stuff that really popped out at me.

Both.




First off, I was making a point. Second, assuming I was trying to convert UFO believers into non-believers, my first step would not be to march into a place where I KNEW the UFO believers to be and start insulting them.

No, I'm saying that YOU have said YOU want to eliminate the power of religion. OK. Fine. If that's what you really want, you're going about it in a very stupid way. To change their beliefs, you must win the religious people over. You're not going to do that by starting off the conversation accusing them and their beliefs of being ridiculous.


In that case, as you have mentioned, no one can ever know the truth. Until that changes (and it won't) stop insulting people who have no more absolute knowledge of the truth than you do.

The problem is that you just don't know if they're wrong or not. There's no way of knowing for sure. Hell for all we know we're all just some simulation running on some immensely powerful computer system. We don't know, and we won't ever know. And since we can't truly know, it would behoove us not to look down our noses at others who don't truly know just because they don't happen to believe in the unknowable thing that we believe in.



I think you're confused here. I was accused by KM of making an ad hominem attack. I never accused you of it.





Because you cannot prove that god does not exist. Therefore you must take it on faith that your conclusions are correct.

If it were a religious belief system, then I would be guilty of that.

I don't think it's ridiculous, no. I don't think something has to be ridiculous just because I don't personally believe in it.

I would have to take the individual who believes it on a case by case basis to answer that. If he just dreamed it up, then maybe it's ridiculous. If he's been told all his life by all his relatives and all his friends that UFO's exist and they're going to come take him away to paradise, then that's not quite as ridiculous.

Lizra

I'm not interested in the religious people, they can think what they want, who cares! I'm interested in other atheists. Atheism is a wonderful thing, it needs to become more than zero. Come out of the closets! Subscriptions to Discover magazine to all!!

Ok...back to the old god/no god thing.....

__________________
Happy atheist

ShaniFaye

Im beginning to see that Atheists are as closed and narrow minded as believers are some times accused of. Im so glad the atheists I know in real life dont behave like y'all do and just respect an "interest" in things other than their "beliefs", because some of you do a real good job at not making yourselves desirable as companions

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Ourcrazymodern?

I need my subscription renewed, in 2009...
ShaniFaye, you've surely read enough of my nonsense to forgive me?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Willravel

Then I'll come back to this thread.

Atheism is simply a label that describes people that are not one thing: a theist. While the reasoning behind taking this position on existence varies, it hardly means that you must no longer respect theists. This is where Dawkins and I seem to separate. I could not disrespect my family and friends because they happen to be theists. I can think someone is misguided or has a different perception of our world without attacking them outright and challenging them at every turn. While I obviously have the ability to argue to no end about a million different things, theism being one of them, I find that doing so is only appropriate under very specific and controlled circumstances, the most important of circumstances being mutual respect (as you can see in my discussion with Filtherton in the other atheism thread). Once that respect dissolves, so also dissolves any meaning or possibility of a peaceful and mutually acceptable outcome.

One of the most important lessons that the TFP can teach is that with mutual respect comes positive growth. It's something to bear in mind whether you're talking about Lost in Entertainment, the FCC in Politics, or Atheism in General Discussion.

ShaniFaye

see willravel....I have no problem with the WAY you have presented anything you've said (in either thread)even though I dont agree with it lol....Im glad you came back lol

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

KnifeMissile

I can't believe how stuck you are on the notion of "proof." The lack of proof against existence is not evidence for existence. This has been demonstrated, repeatedly. Why does it repeatedly come up? What's with this obsession?

Insults are so subjective. You say that you don't mind people being insulted as long as the it's the idea that's insulting them and not the words. Well, I don't think "delusion" is a pejorative. I don't think "ridiculous" or "proposterous" are pejoratives, either. If someone thought that magnets can cure a cold (something that some people believe!) and someone else came out and said that that was ridiculous, I'd don't think we'd be having this conversation. Theists may be insulted but we're not insulting them. Some people think that religion is ridiculous and they've supported their opinion with reasoned arguments.

Now, while Yakk has been using the pejorative "stupid," he's yet to call religious people stupid. He's only called their belief in religion "stupid." You've already said that using fairly neutral words like "ludicrous" or "ridiculous" is still insulting. Is there any word that can be used, here, that holds the same meaning? Judging by your arguments, I contend that it is the idea that's insulting and the wording matters little...

I certainly don't think one should go out of their way to insult the pious. Coming out and saying the christion people are idiots is a rather personal attack. However, saying that the christian belief is idiotic, while pejorative, is not an attack on the people. They may not see it that way but you can only go so far until being insulted is up to them and not you.

I would say that their beliefs are ridiculous or ludicrous and not consider that an insult. Instead, I would consider that merely a statement and whether they consider that insulting or not is up to them. I understand that you disagree so I'm wondering, exactly, how far you'd go if you were to make a similar statement. How would you word this statement so that the burden of offense is on them?

I was raised a christian and was able to question my religion. Therefore, I'm wondering why others who were raised similarly are unable to question theirs. This seems reasonable to me. I understand that some of them won't be able to this since we're not all the same. However, the idea that I may be exceptional seems... unlikely, at least. I guess this stems from my belief (and, this time, I have no real evidence of this) that we're all critical thinkers and we merely need to choose to think about things...

I understand why you cut out so much context since, frankly, these posts are getting too long. However, do you recall the part of my post that claimed that I listen to people regardless of how much they insult me? I don't disregard valuable information merely because the source of that information was a jerk. I understand that I'm unique in this regard but I don't get why you'd be surprised by my reaction given what I had told you about myself...

I suppose I don't love gravity the same way that some theists love God. However, I don't think that's the reason why I'm willing to dump our current theory of gravity (which I do love) nor do I think that's the only reason why theists aren't willing to dump God. I'm willing to change my view of the world because, like Yakk, I value truth and I know that you can't learn the truth by ignoring evidence. I understand that what I want to be true and what is true are two completely different things.

I think describing religion as "psychological mastery" is overstating it. There's a reason why Dawkins likened it to a gene. It has a self defense mechanism (you'll go to hell if you don't believe!) and a method of procreation (spread the gospel! Oh, and indoctrinate your children while you're at it), not to mention faith as a virtue. All this, as you implied, reinforces the belief but is rather transparent if only one were to think about it. It's not even all that surprising that it would have these properties considering it might have to in order to surive this whole time. This is natural selection working on memes...

I only remarked on this 'cause it's an intersting topic. Really, I don't understand how this is a response to faith as a method of believing the preposterous. I also don't get the last part of this paragraph. No one is saying that theists are delusional because they don't see the machanisms of their religion. They're saying they're delusional because they believe in fairy tales...

The goal is not to avoid insulting people. You, yourself, said that it's alright to insult them if it's the idea that's insulting. The issue, here, is whether we are insulting them needlessly. That is, if we are adding pejorative insults on top of the natural insult to the opposition of their beliefs.

...but why was she annoyed? She has said, herself, that she doesn't care if atheists call her stupid, so that's not what annoyed her...

This is another false association. Suppose the argument was about whether 1+1=2 or 3. You might imagine that it would be extremely difficult to get the proponents of 2 to concede anything. Are they "closed and narrow minded" or do they simply have nothing to concede?

I'm glad that you're happy with the atheists in your life although I'm curious to know what you mean by "respect." Your sentences were not well formed so it was hard for me to understand what you were saying.

I've accused you of some things but I've never accused you of making an ad hominem attack. To what are you referring when you say this?

I was going to let it slide but since I'm on the subject, anyways, I don't think you used the word "disingenuous" properly, either. There's nothing disingenuous about expecting your insults to sway people's opinion...

ShaniFaye

I was referring to Lizra's statement in only being interested in other atheists. And silly as it *might* sound to someone, even if I dont care about something I can still be annoyed at yakk's condescending manner and his overuse of the word ridiculous and his statement that his respect for a person is lowered if they persist in believing in God. A person's personal religious belief or lack thereof is not a factor in respect for that person IMO.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Ourcrazymodern?

It's just us here, people! Not to disrupt this "conversation"!

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

You're right, it does sound silly to me. If what Yakk says annoys you then you must care, at least a little, about what he's saying. Then again, if you can reconcile religion with reality then surely you can reconcile this small dichotomy...

As a theist, what do you think an unoffensive way to say that "religious belief is ridiculous" might be? I think shakran would call that an insult but I disagree. You said that you like how willravel debates the issue but he's used the word "irrational" to describe religious faith in this very thread. Do you consider that word less offensive than "ridiculous?"

ShaniFaye

I believe I said his overuse of the word and I said it was the way he presented what he said, not his opinion that its stupid or ridiculous. Sorry if the difference silly to you, but thats just the way it is.

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

shakran

OK. I've tried to be nice, and it's not working, so I want you to read this part of the post very, very carefully. I am not trying to prove that there is or is not a god. I am not telling you that you have to prove that there is or is not a god. I am saying that if you cannot PROVE your position, you should not be a JERK to those who disagree with you. It's another way of saying "Stop being a damn jerk" without being so blunt about it.

I don't have an obsession with proving that there's a god, especially since I have significant doubts that there is one.

Well, from where I sit, calling religion ridiculous is asinine. Until you can provide concrete evidence that you are right in YOUR belief, then it's absolutely jawdroppingly stupid of you to say that someone else's well established and ingrained belief is ridiculous. That's not to say they're right. You don't have to think they're right. But try putting it more intelligently. "I don't think you're right about God" is much less of an asshole thing to say than "Your religion is ridiculous."

Try "I don't believe in god, and here's why." Gee, you might even get people to listen to you instead of concentrating on how pissed off you made them if you did that.


I don't believe in god. I have issues with some of the stories in the bible. For example. . . .

See how that invites dialogue a lot more than "everything you believe is ridiculous?"


Maybe they don't want to. Who cares? Not your problem. Live your life, not theirs. Athiests love to bitch to high. .er. . heaven about how the christians want to impose their horrible god beliefs on everyone else. Well, the door swings both ways. Practice what you preach. It's fine not to believe in god. But quit trying to convert the masses lest you become guilty of the same bullshit you accuse them of.

That's admirable. Not everyone is built like you. And even if they did listen to you despite hurling insults at them, doesn't mean it's OK to hurl insults at them.

My apologies. That was Yakk, not you. I can't keep this thread straight anymore

KnifeMissile

Well, don't worry. I'm not the kind of guy who stops being nice merely because the other speaker isn't. That's just the kind of guy I am...

I'd hate to think that you spent all this time dancing around the message "stop being a damn jerk." There's nothing wrong with being blunt and asking others to not be jerky is far from rude...

This is why I said you're "obsessed" with "proof." I'm not saying you're obsessed with proving God exists (since you don't even particularly believe), I'm saying that you're obsessed with the necessity of proof.

If someone thought that there was a teapot in orbit (not on Earth) around the sun, I would call that ridiculous. Moon hoax proponents are ridiculous. I cannot prove there isn't a teapot orbiting the Sun and I can't prove the moon landings weren't faked but it's not inappropriate to call these beliefs ridiculous. I don't think these statements are insults, either. Is your contention that religion is such a sensitive topic that one must "sweeten" their tone beyond ordinary discourse?

These examples do sound a lot less confrontational but they also seem understated. "I don't believe" sounds very conciliatory, which I suppose is the point. How about "I think there's no reason to believe in God and here's why?" Would you consider this less offensive?

I thought we went over this? A lot of atheists would love to "live their lives" if only the deeply religious would let them. People proselytizing is less offensive to me than lobbying the government to fund religious activities. If all theists ever did was try to convert me, it wouldn't be the heated debate that it is. The door does not swing both ways. Unfortunately, it is my problem and if I bitch, it's only because I'm given plenty to bitch about...

You miss the point entirely. I was merely questioning why you'd say "it would surprise me if I hurled insults at you and..." after being told how ineffectual insults are to me. It just seemed odd... In fact, your response here seems queer considering the context. Here's what you edited out, underlined:The important part is in bold. I tell you that I'm unique but you turn around and remind me that "not everyone is built like me." I tell you at the very end what the point of that paragraph is and you ignore it...

I understand that there has been a lot said by a number of people in this thread...

shakran

Well actually I was that blunt with Yakk days ago.


Yes. When you have a well established concept that people have believed in for millenia, I do think it would be awfully nice if you'd have some sort of evidence to back up your side before you trash theirs. You can bring up all the silly BS examples of modern hoaxes and paranoid conspiracy theories, but when you get right down to it there is a difference between that and well-established religion. A difference I'm sure you're praying I don't point out. People who believe in god aren't generally doing it because it's cool, or because they're making it up, or because they're nuts. They have, in their mind, very good reasons for their belief. An atheist who whines about religious intolerance has absolutely no right to be intolerant of religion. You can try to draw comparisons between belief in religion and belief in martians if you wish, but you and I both know that no one here is going to be fooled. You may as well give up that line of attack. It's not gonna work.

Why is "I don't believe" conciliatory. You're saying you don't buy in to what they're telling you is the truth. That is not conciliatory. Unless you define conciliatory as "not being a jerk," then you're off base here.

It's essentially the same thing I said.


Yeah, I thought we went over it too. If a deeply religious person is trying to infringe on your rights, then go after THAT PERSON. Not everyone who happens to have the misfortune of having you find out he believes in god.

I didn't ignore it. I reiterated it. So you're unique. Great. Others aren't quite so forgiving in their willingness to consider your thoughts when your words are so abrasive.

KnifeMissile

I think a lot is being revealed, here.

You indicated, earlier, that you didn't like these analogies and you're saying that again, here. You say that this "line of attack" is not going to work and I'm inclined to agree with you since... it's not working. However, I don't understand why you pretend that I know what you're talking about and then not reveal the big secret "I'm praying you don't point out?" What's with the melodrama? This is supposed to be a message board of mature discourse. Talk to me! What's the distinction? They're both just as unreasonable and perfectly analogous. If you know how they are different, why won't you just say it? It would certainly help quell my incredulity over religion...

I understand that no amount of reasoning will convince the faithful. That's what faith is for. All we can hope to do is plant seeds. Some may be convinced. Other's may think about it, later. Maybe my words are utterly ineffectual. However, I'm not sure I can pretend that religion makes any sense just because I think the debate is futile...

That's just the impression it gives me. If you think "I think this is unreasonable" is unoffensive, I can live with that. Of course, I can't speak for the other atheists in this thread...

What if an institution is infringing upon my rights? How would you feel about my going after that institution? It can be argued that I only have a problem with organized religion. Would that make you feel better?

This is getting a little off topic but I'll go for it. You didn't reiterate my point. My point was not that I'm unique, which is what you reiterated. My point was that you'd be surprised and that made no sense, which is what you ignored. I understand that the religious aren't as forgiving (ironically); that's what makes me unique...

Lizra

I'm not sure how I offended you (or if I did)....sorry.....but, I am not interested in arguing about god/no god with believers. I didn't think that was the topic of this thread....but maybe I'm wrong.
The evidence (or lack of ) on this is out there....make your choice....enjoy. If you choose to believe, have a nice day, but I'm moving on. I'm interested in discussion with the people who think like me. More, more, more!
I have friends and neighbors who believe, there is no disrespect on my part. BUT...if they start talking about their religious beliefs for more that a few sentences, I'm gone.... from boredom, and the desire to not waste my time on something I consider fictional. I have given too much time/thought/energy to religion already in my life, and don't want to waste another precious moment. I would like to spend time furthering and celebrating atheism. It's a great cause.

__________________
Happy atheist

analog

I think it's a pretty relevant personal opinion on whether or not someone finds a another's personal characteristics to be respectful or not. I'm glad that for you, a person's religion/lack of, is not.

For example, though, a person who is extremely christian may very well have no respect for a person they meet who says they worship satan. Many people in this country, especially in some certain areas more than others, are still disrespected for being Jewish. I think we all make judgments based on a variety of things, and losing respect based on religious affiliation/lack of is just another one of those factors that we could use.

While I don't agree with that line of thinking, and I don't lower my respect for a person based on their religion or lack thereof, It's still common enough that for some, the depth of their religious convictions makes them feel like there is nothing to respect in a person if their religion (or lack of) is not agreeable.

I would think that's a pretty shallow way to judge a person, and unreasonable to cast aside a person's respect just because they're religion X or not religious at all, but everyone has their opinion and some feel very strongly about their religious beliefs.

Now, if I found out there was a religion that sacrificed babies or virgins or did something similarly insidious, then I would not have respect for that person- but that would mainly focus on the fact that their religion is, literally, making them a murderer... and not just that it's religion X.

(Side note: having said that, consider that to some people, any religion/lack of that allows abortion is a religion/lack of that condones killing babies. Think about it.)

For me personally, I lose a little respect for anyone that follows any religion blindly, only because that's not the point of any faith. The reason is that I find it unreasonable for any person to follow a religion like a mindless lemming. If you do that, I can't understand how you can truly say you belong to the faith if you're just going through the motions. This, however, would be a *tiny* amount of lost respect, and It wouldn't change my opinion of them enough to change the way in which we interact, at all. If anything, it would make me curious and want to learn more about them so I can understand their opinion, and restore that respect.

Yakk

You get a prize for not answering the question! Do you prefer licorish or chocolate?

It was a simple question. You attacked me for shoveling UFO believers and Christians into the same category, and called UFO believers "whackjobs".

It is a want. It is not my all consuming focus in life.

No, that is not the only way to contribute to the loss of religious belief. I do not believe I am capable of freeing every human from their problems.

Having a conversation with someone is not the only way to convince them they are wrong. There are millions of ways to erode away the religious infection. Freeing souls lost to religious infections one-by-one in heart-to-heart talks -- that isn't the only way.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge is a testament not to the pointlessness of knowledge and truth, but the ridiculousness of the absolute requirement.

I do not know in the absolute sense, in the way that I don't know anything absolutely. I don't know absolutely that raping babies is evil, but I still know that raping babies is evil. Read that over twice if you have to.

Absolute knowledge isn't a requirement of action.

I asked you not to make an ad hominem attack, not KM.

If you define faith that broadly, it is meaningless. You must have faith that the sun came up yesturday, you must have faith that your mind exists, you must have faith that there isn't a howling void outside of your door and that opening it is safe.

The impossibility of absolute knowledge does not mean that all knowledge is faith -- if you hold that to be true, then the word "faith" means nothing at all.

I object when someone takes a word, and broadens it to meaninglessness. As such, I quite reject your definition of faith, and all arguements that fall from it, as having any meaning.

If you can come up with a reasonable definition of faith that isn't useless, please do so.

How is the FSM belief system not a religious belief system? Is it because it is less popular than other belief systems?

Ah, it is popularity that matters. You object to my attacking a belief system because it is socially transmitted.

As noted, I understand that religion is often a socially transmitted infection. I'm aware that people are a product of their history -- argueably, people are nothing more than a product of their history. Dispite this, people are not free of responsibility for their beliefs.

I hold each and every person responsible for their actions and beiefs. I understand that their actions and beliefs have causes outside of themselves, but that does not mean that they are not responsible for their own actions and their own beliefs.

Understanding why they have such a belief, or do such an action, does not excuse it. Seeing that I would have their belief, or do such an action, in the same situation does not excuse it.

If one is not responsible for beliefs that where the result of your environment, one is responsible for nothing. This is evidence that the term "responsible" is being used incorrectly -- it has been broadened into meaninglessness. My response to a term being broadened into meaninglessness is to reevaluate the broadening, and find a useful meaning for the word consistent with it's colloquial meanings.

So I know people are raised catholic, and believe it because they are patterning their life after their parents. This provides me with information on how to break the pattern of religious infection. It does not mean that people are not responsible for their beliefs.

Some are.

I respect lots of things about lots of people. In this thread, I'm only talking about religious belief and the lack thereof.

I do throw in the "I can respect people even if I don't respect one of their beliefs" from time to time, but that isn't the focus of the thread's arguements. I usually throw that out when people accuse me of hating or lacking any respect for people who have religious beliefs.

I can have respect for them, but I would have more if they lost the religious belief.

I don't challenge people at every turn. I am having a debate in this thread, in which my opinions about religious belief are being attacked.

I can respect someone less because of their religious belief and still respect that person.

Does nobody have a good friend that they love and that they think has a serious problem? Can they not love and respect their friend, yet wish their friend didn't have that serious problem?

Most people I interact with socially (well over half) are believers or one degree or another. They know I find their beliefs ridiculous, and they know that I love and respect them as people. One does not have to love and respect every single feature of someone in order to love and respect a person.

I respect your respect of other's religious beliefs. It is quite likely a good, wise and smart belief.

I hold a different belief, one that you have no reason to respect. I can accept this.

I'm using ridiculous regularly because it was my original descriptive. Changing up adjectives to something equivilent might make better prose, but it would fuzzy the waters (do I mean something different in this particular case or not?)

Would it be better if I used another word to describe my view of religious belief? Most likely.

Would "Delusion" work better? KM has been using it, and it seems to fit reasonably.

"Their delusional religious belief" instead of "their ridiculous religious belief". Avoids alliteration also!

I don't believe in god for the same reasons I don't believe in the flying spagetti monster. Neither belief explains anything about human experience or life. Insofar as either belief has made claims or predictions about the world, they have been shown to be completely and utterly wrong. I consider your religious belief to be equivilent to the belief of a UFO cultist. I wish you where free of your religious infection.

Religious believers continue to infect their children with their religious beliefs. Religious believers continue to impose their beliefs on me. Religious believers holding the most powerful civil and military position in the entire world consider people without religious beliefs to be second-class citizens.

I have reason to be afraid of religious belief. And I don't think I can pick and choose which parts of religious belief that aren't threatening. There have been relatively non-threatening religious beliefs in the past (as far as I know), such as the theism of many of the founding fathers of the USA. It lacked sufficiently strong infectious power, and it pretty much died off as a philosophy.

I don't see why the length of establishment of the religion should sway me significantly on my opinions about the delusional belief itself. I'm well aware that delusional beliefs can be carried on through generations and generations of time. I'm aware that religious belief, in order to survive, needs to be very good at infecting the children of believers. Based off that, I'd expect older religions to be more powerful.

(And less destructive. On average, with lots of variance.)

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Ourcrazymodern?

This ability to quote those we disagree with seems to me to be f**king up the conversation. While acknowledging I don't make points very well, I have to ask: What's the point of picking apart another person's statement, point by point, while leaving out the other points? One might as well say "Allah ahkbar" and ignore it.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

Willravel

I was talking more about Dawkins than anyone else. Also, no one is attacking anything, leaset of all your beliefs. I hope you understand there is a marked difference between questioning beliefs and attacking beliefs. Attacking beliefs would be, for example: "Christians are delusional and should seek immediate psychiatric help, because if they don't humanity will be gone in a few generations. If they choose not to seek help, they should be incarcerated and not allowed to spread their lies or fed to lions." That's a bit different than the message of atheists in this thread. Our message is simply that faith in an unprovable higher power doesn't make sense to us. I'm sure most Christians scratch their heads a bit when they hear the story of Scientology. For us, it's basically the same concept. Why believe in something that is only referenced in a book? Why isn't this just simply more mythology, along with Greek, Norse, and such? Is there a rational explanation for faith in the supernatural? Those are the questions that are being addressed in the thread.
But you respect them less. Is that fair?
Wishing someone didn't have a serious problem is not directly linked the a loss of respect. Would you lose respect for someone in the grips of depression or addiction?

Ourcrazymodern?

Respect requires recognizing our relative equality.
The theists not recognizing atheists as also created by god and the atheists ridiculing the theists strike me as similarly confused.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

It's simply a matter of practicality. We responded to each and every paragraph, at first, but if we continued to respond to every one (I don't like picking sentences out of paragraphs in fear of losing important context) then our posts would be prohibitively long. Also, in this thread, many of the paragraphs have similar themes and we'd be needlessly repeating ourselves by responding to each one...

smooth

Never really understood the point. Usually just devolves into petty bickering of minor points to a larger argument, in my experience.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

Bill O'Rights

ENOUGH!!

What the hell?

The rampant, and blatant, disrespect and belittling, ends...NOW

If I see one, and I do mean one more instance of anyone calling another persons beliefs ridiculous...and it's time out city. Anyone "disagree"? Come see me in private. Unfreakin' believable.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Yakk

I would like to thank everyone who participated. I learned new things, even if we disagreed.

__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.

Willravel

Time out city?

Neeways, we should be free to discuss the various points between theism and atheism, BUT the 'you're an idiot' thing just doesn't do anything for the discussion. I might think you're an idiot, but coming out and saying it or asserting it in a discussion is wrong and against forum rules and good taste.

I think we should get back to the discussion.

Bill O'Rights

Yes...time out city

You are free to discuss the various points between theism and atheism. In fact, I welcome it. I never intended for the discussion to end.
Exactly. And it will not continue. Tempted as I was to simply close the thread, I opted to leave it open because there is a lot of good discussion, and discourse, in it. Regretably, it is tainted with venom. I will not allow that to continue.

Please do.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

Willravel

Psst, I was agreeing with you.

Bill O'Rights

Psst...I know.

I was reiterating.

__________________
"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." - Susan B. Anthony

"Hedonism with rules isn't hedonism at all, it's the Republican party." - JumpinJesus

It is indisputable that true beauty lies within...but a nice rack sure doesn't hurt.

filtherton

You are both ridiculous.

Ourcrazymodern?

And the Parthenon still stands! It's bizarre.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

jpmck03

~~

ShaniFaye

I ran into the same problem last nite when trying to find it for Dave to watch, we found this one

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...80578032579777

its in english, but has spanish sub titles on the screen

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

ngdawg

While I liked the video in general, Dawkins himself is evangelical in his commentary.
I consider myself to be a 'logical atheist', in that I just look at what is there in religion, question it and draw a conclusion. It seems to me that if you have belief in God, you would have belief in the stories attributed to him in both the Old and New Testaments and none make a lick of sense.
People don't live to be over 400 years old, then have children; a man can't live in the belly of a whale and the only way to walk on water is if it's ice. And the beginnings of human life didn't pop up out of dirt.
This discussion has gone on for 192 comments so far and it boils down to a who is right and who is wrong. Having faith in a supreme entity is not wrong for the people who have it; it only becomes wrong when an attempt is made to use that faith to override factual information such as evolutionary evidence.
Personally, I'm of the feeling that if you believe in God and Jesus, you believe a fat man really could deliver toys to believing children simply by driving a sleigh pulled by flying reindeer; that fable makes about as much sense as turning around and becoming a pillar of salt. But that's just me. I have a hard time understanding how anyone can say they know those biblical stories are exagerations, but swear they think God and the miracles in the NT are true.
But, is that not the definition of faith? To believe without objectivity?

__________________
Don't blame me. I didn't vote for either of'em.

filtherton

I think that dawkins is the andrea dworkin of the atheism movement. Ultimately he could do some good, if only because he makes all the atheists who aren't jerks seem a lot more reasonable.

Willravel

Anyone who makes me seem more reasonable can't be all bad.

Val_1

Dawkins has a great opportunity to change the public perception of atheism now that he's in the limelight. I just fear he is going to blow it all with his evangelical approach. The recent poll showing atheists to be the most mistrusted group shows that deep down people do not even understand our viewpoints. They view all atheists as being loud mouth trouble makers. If Dawkins can come across as reasonable and charming instead of angry he could make a great change.

__________________

I feel sorry for people who don't drink. When they wake up in the morning, that's as good as they're going to feel all day.

-Frank Sinatra

Ourcrazymodern?

Most people don't even understand their own viewpoints, possessing them without owning them. Evangelists from both ends of the spectrum tend to be loud mouth trouble makers. I think Dawkins doesn't seem to be angry, just frustrated. Oh, and reasonable and charming.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

KnifeMissile

Right or wrong, I think this is a good assessment of Dawkins' attitude...

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/-_2xGIwQfik" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I can't get enough of this embedded YouTube stuff...

Ourcrazymodern?

Well, convolution can be a good thing. It can...
Quoting others can be a good thing...
I'm not going to do either, as far as I know: Attacking our fellow human beings for what they believe and what they don't is not a good thing.
IT"S JUST US HERE, PEOPLE.

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT