Just As Dogmatic

[nailit]

are atheists/agnostics just as dogmatic about their unbelief as religionists are of theirs?
Wouldnt it be more honest to say (when it comes to the 'big issues' such as life after death, paranormal experiences, etc) that we just dont know?

Ive wavered between belief systems for years and have read the bible/koran/other religious writings and Dawkins/Hitchens et all.

Ive spent countless hours reading forums of all faiths and those of no faith. But what strikes me is how similar, atheists present their case similar to how religionists present theirs..."im right and youre wrong"....no middle ground.

[andy-hughes]

RATTER - // andy-hughs, "I look forward to a retraction of your remark, and an apology."
you will have a long wait!! I stand by my comment!! //

Then you should be ashamed of yourself for making such a vile slur - I hope that no-one is as careless and callous when responding to any observations you may make.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, That wasn’t sarcasm, it was (hopefully) a helpful suggestion. You appear to be meeting yourself coming back.

//why you think that my indifference to religion equates to your imagined indifference to human suffering//

I answered that question earlier. //If you genuinely care about the negative consequences morally you cannot possibly be indifferent to the cause.//

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, That wasn’t sarcasm, it was (hopefully) a helpful suggestion. You appear to be meeting yourself coming back.

//why you think that my indifference to religion equates to your imagined indifference to human suffering//

I answered that question earlier. //If you genuinely care about the negative consequences morally you cannot possibly be indifferent to the cause.//

I believe your premise is flawed.

I think it is perfectly possible to be indifferent to religion - and by that, I mean the concept of worshiping a deity, while maintaining a humanistic approach to the consequences of such a belief.

You see a link between the two, I do not - perhaps we should agree to differ?

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, That wasn’t sarcasm, it was (hopefully) a helpful suggestion.//

Then your hope is misplaced on this occasion.

I am fully aware of what I think, and believe, thank you.

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //I am fully aware of what I think, and believe, thank you.//

I’m in no doubt of that.

[andy-hughes]

Naomi - //andy-hughes, //I am fully aware of what I think, and believe, thank you.//

I’m in no doubt of that. //

Then why the advice?

They say advice is often only good for those who give it ...

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, I haven’t given you advice – and I’ve no idea who ‘they’ are. This discussion is going around in silly circles - and that holds no interest for me.

[mibn2cweus]

Belief for the sake of belief is a dangerous thing in the consequences of the actions that follow from arbitrary beliefs no less the consequences of a skewed view of reality.

I believe only that which I have found corresponds completely without contradiction to my experience with and subsequent understanding of reality, the place where we live and prosper or suffer and die in relation to our knowledge and comprehensive understanding of what is real and our ability to differentiate what is real from what is merely a preferred self-delusion.

Belief should never be at the expense of ones own willingness and indeed desire to confront and acknowledge the truth, no less ones unjustifiable reasons for believing as and what they do.

[goodlife]

You know it sad to think that after concluding this covenant to walk in accord with what was written in the book, the people of God forgot their God and his Word and the reading of it for direction and succumbed to the will of the nations round about.

With this background, neglecting the study of his Word and listening to it, due to pressures from surrounding nations and peoples, so we are faced with similar circumstances. Israel had false religious worship on all sides, We face false worship today throughout the earth and in similar ways.

[andy-hughes]

goodlife - you have added nothing to this debate except pseudo-religious rambling – so no change there.

[Khandro]

If you have never seen 'The Trouble with Atheism' it might be worth a look.

[naomi24]

There are so many holes in his carefully constructed and highly emotive spin I hardly know where to begin. Ultimately the ‘fine tuning’ of the universe doesn’t equate to proof of the existence of a ‘creator’ – and it certainly doesn’t evidence the handiwork of the God of Abraham – the imaginary source that is single-handedly responsible for much of the chaos we’re witnessing in the world today. Additionally, as was said by the better informed of the interviewees, Hitler, Stalin, et al, did not do what they did in the name of Atheism. Ron Liddle’s final question is ‘There might be a God or there might not be a God – why can’t we leave it at that?” The simple answer to that is because religion affects us all – whether we want it to or not.

[RATTER15]

Khandro, I don't know how long that video has been around but I have never seen it before. It was marginally interesting but not very informative and proved nothing! He annoyed me a little by implying that atheists have religious text and temples etc, some may actually believe that silly nonsense, of course we don't, we also don't hate the religious, just their belief systems and all the barbaric savagery carried out in the name of these so called Gods and the people that carry out these atrocities.

It just came across as a very one sided programme that taught us absolutely nothing about anything. Such a shame I was looking forward to it, I even paused it and went and made my coffee and breakfast so I could sit undisturbed. Oh well Khandro, keep trying!!

[RATTER15]

"Ron Liddle’s final question is ‘There might be a God or there might not be a God – why can’t we leave it at that?”

We can! when the religious stop pushing their ideas, beliefs and values on the whole of the world and wanting to change it to suit them!

[naomi24]

Ratter, Ron Liddle’s out of his depth on this one.

[naomi24]

*Rod Liddle

[Khandro]

naomi; What do you consider his "depth" is then ?
'Roderick E. L. Liddle (born 1 April 1960) is an English journalist.
He is an associate editor of The Spectator, and former editor of BBC Radio 4's Today programme, he is the author of several best-selling books. He has presented several television programmes, including The New Fundamentalists, The Trouble with Atheism, and Immigration Is A Time Bomb.
Liddle began his career at the South Wales Echo, then worked for the Labour Party, and later joined the BBC. He become editor of Today in 1998, resigning in 2002 after his employers objected to one of his articles in The Guardian. He has also written for The Sunday Times and The Sun among other publications.'

[tamborine]

A count of responses here will show who are most dogmatic, lol

[RATTER15]

No Tambo, not at all, thats silly.

look at how many people are out there pushing religion to how many are out there pushing atheism.

Look how many books there are on religion to how many are out there atheism.

Look at the methods use to push and enforce religion, look at the methods used to push and enforce atheism.

That program showed nothing, it revealed nothing.

So what did you get from it Khandro?

[naomi24]

Khandro, your point being? I know he’s a journalist.