Why not ignore those dratted atheists?

[naomi24]

Yet again the plaintive cry has been heard that those dratted atheists who dare to rock the rickety boat of religion with frequent gusts of rationality are preventing the faithful from discussing their beliefs as they would wish to discuss them here. The fact is if the faithful choose not to enter into discussion with those who oppose their views, it is their choice. No one is imposing that choice upon them. At the risk of stating the obvious, why don’t they and their apologists do what they do with their religious literature and simply ignore the contradictions? They are not going to stop anyone contributing to any thread – and nor should they attempt to - but at least if they disregard what they see as negative comments, they can waffle on between themselves to their heart’s content. Just an idea.

[naomi24]

Johnysid, //I have raised the problem of morality as an example but there are other problems. //

Well I wish you'd raise such problems elsewhere rather than hi-jacking unrelated threads.

[LazyGun]

@Naomi -Oops at contributing to the hijack. Johnysids "declarations of truth" about the arrogance of atheists in ganging up on the poor defenceless religionistas prompted me to respond to his content -free jargon rich posts.

Sorry!

[naomi24]

LG, Haaa! Understandable. :o)

[jomifl]

Johnny //Almost all religions apply a moral absolutism to society//
only in a 'relatively' short time scale, religions and their 'absolute' moral values evolve just like everything else. The Jews used to stone people to death at the slightest excuse, it doesn't happen now (OK they use tanks now but that is academic). The Catholics used to burn people in their thousands on bonfires for being free thinking (blasphemous in relious parlance). They don't do it now, not because they don't want to but because atheists won't let them :-)

[Johnysid]

Well, I am not going to apologise naomi, the only advice I can offer is:

".. at least if they disregard what they see as negative comments, they can waffle on between themselves to their heart’s content"

[naomi24]

Johnysid, I'm not asking you to apologise, but this isn't the first time your apparent fixation with Marxism has taken over an unrelated thread. Several people have queried your posts here and I've said to you before, if you want to talk about another subject it would be courteous to start your own thread rather than disrupt someone else's.

[beso]

Jihnysid //I have raised the problem of morality as an example but there are other problems. //

You have suggested that morality is a problem for those who don't follow the decree of some ancient ignorant misogynist men who arrogantly insisted their every thought was sourced from a higher intelligence. However you have not shown how their arbitrary morality is in any way superior to that arrived at by modern thinking.

Moreover you have not responded to the pointed criticism I leveled at the morality of the churches. The behaviours condoned in the Bible are objectively shown to be nothing more than institutionalised tribal prejudices built on arbitrary perspectives.

It has also been pointed out that the church has shifted its moral sensibilities in response to societal pressure that reject the guidance offered by their holy book. Despite these contradictions with the original doctrine they still uphold the Bible as the justification for their position.

The only thing religion offers is the idea that one does not have to justify a moral perspective because it is decreed by an absolute authority. Remarkably this justification is used even when that authority contradicts the position being defended.

Religion is for the philosophically lazy and arrogant as evidence by their assertion that their position does not need objective foundations.

Atheism is not arrogant because it provides objective bases for the views presented.

[Khandro]

With reference to the appropriateness, or otherwise, of atheists dominating 'Religion and Spirituality'. I have checked, and there seems to be no such invasion of 'Law' by anarchists.

[naomi24]

Khandro, you intimate that atheists here to 'invaders' Why? Are they, in your opinion, not entitled or not qualified to discuss religion and spirituality - and if not, what leads you to that conclusion?

[naomi24]

*not 'to invaders' - 'are invaders'.

[mibn2cweus]

Talk about your invaders . . . "We were here first"

http://cdn.head-fi.or...ll-hunkpapa-sioux.jpg

[jomifl]

What is wrong with the assumptions of theists and 'spiritual' people being challenged? If they want to hide away in a world of smug conceite and deny reality then they will be the ultimate losers. Fortunately some of them are prepared to defend their views on AB so haven't been completely blinded by the 'glory' of god.