Quizzes & Puzzles69 mins ago
May I continue the debate?
71 Answers
The idea of Question Closed is new to me. I would, though, like to correct 123everton on something he said in a previous thread. Here goes:
123everton, let me give you one example of becoming an atheist without being ‘led’ into it – my own.
I became an atheist as a young man entirely through my own thinking and reasoning. No-one else influenced me. On the contrary, I had to rid myself of years of brain-washing by Sunday School teachers, preachers and religious broadcasters. At that time Dawkins was a teenager and Hitchens a schoolboy.
It was many years before I discovered Dawkins, by reading his brilliant The Blind Watchmaker. I was so impresed by his clear thinking, his lucid and elegant style and his sense of humour that I became a fan and now have all of his books on my shelf.
When it became obvious that he was an atheist I was pleased that a man I admired thought the same way that I did. I delighted in The God Delusion because it put the case against religion and for atheism with far greater skill and authority than I could ever have mustered. But the point is that I was not influenced by him and he has never heard of me.
This cannot be with religionists. They are always persuaded into religion by others; reasoning and thinking could not possibly haven taken them down that strange route.
That is why naomi is right to say that the equivalence you claimed is invalid.
Sorry this isn't a question.
123everton, let me give you one example of becoming an atheist without being ‘led’ into it – my own.
I became an atheist as a young man entirely through my own thinking and reasoning. No-one else influenced me. On the contrary, I had to rid myself of years of brain-washing by Sunday School teachers, preachers and religious broadcasters. At that time Dawkins was a teenager and Hitchens a schoolboy.
It was many years before I discovered Dawkins, by reading his brilliant The Blind Watchmaker. I was so impresed by his clear thinking, his lucid and elegant style and his sense of humour that I became a fan and now have all of his books on my shelf.
When it became obvious that he was an atheist I was pleased that a man I admired thought the same way that I did. I delighted in The God Delusion because it put the case against religion and for atheism with far greater skill and authority than I could ever have mustered. But the point is that I was not influenced by him and he has never heard of me.
This cannot be with religionists. They are always persuaded into religion by others; reasoning and thinking could not possibly haven taken them down that strange route.
That is why naomi is right to say that the equivalence you claimed is invalid.
Sorry this isn't a question.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by chakka35. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I'll do my best Chaka (been on an all dayer), I never went to Sunday school or suffered the revelations of religious broadacasters, I presume you mean the likes of Harry Secombe on "Highway" etc? So why me?
You presumably where of an advanced age when you stumbled upon Dawkins, at that point where you a believer in God or not?
You presumably where of an advanced age when you stumbled upon Dawkins, at that point where you a believer in God or not?
Sorry to interrupt Everton. 'Naomi, by gosh, you're on form! Glad I'm not in the opposite camp.' Chakka if you are even slightly implying that I should be afraid of Naomi.....well.....I'm Not.
I think there will be afew long posts here and I'm speaking to Beso first.
Beso criticize as much as you want - I'm saying unsuccesfully that try not to aim that criticism at a personal level - that's all. I don't like to see people get critized - whoever it is - its not nice. Maybe its a fault in my personality but I will speak out against it.
I don't know about your 2nd para, it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I've used this example before - living in the U.K murder is a crime against society and it is one of the forbidden 10 Commandments as I understand it - yet we have defences for it. So how could that 'bad action' of murdering someone reflect our belief - I don't understand. Take for example a Paedophile who prays on a vulnerable child. I don't know what the Old or New Testament says about that but I know that in today's society, it is a crime if that child's parents cannot revenge by death that Paedophile. Society says justice has to be dealt in accordance with the Rule of Law but how many people actually would think that if that parent shot or stabbed to death that Paedophile that they were bad or wrong? I know I certainly wouldn't.
I struggle with you equating religion to bad human nature. And that if it is a religious belief that we are all born bad how we can succumb to the idea that the human condition cannot change - is that not what repentance is all about, I would have thought? 'Many bad things have happened because good people said nothing.' That's one to think about but there are plenty of examples in the political area where good people who do speak out are generally tortured. Amnesty International is one of the frontliners in highlighting that. But I do see your point being in a religious context. cont.......
I think there will be afew long posts here and I'm speaking to Beso first.
Beso criticize as much as you want - I'm saying unsuccesfully that try not to aim that criticism at a personal level - that's all. I don't like to see people get critized - whoever it is - its not nice. Maybe its a fault in my personality but I will speak out against it.
I don't know about your 2nd para, it just doesn't sit comfortably with me. I've used this example before - living in the U.K murder is a crime against society and it is one of the forbidden 10 Commandments as I understand it - yet we have defences for it. So how could that 'bad action' of murdering someone reflect our belief - I don't understand. Take for example a Paedophile who prays on a vulnerable child. I don't know what the Old or New Testament says about that but I know that in today's society, it is a crime if that child's parents cannot revenge by death that Paedophile. Society says justice has to be dealt in accordance with the Rule of Law but how many people actually would think that if that parent shot or stabbed to death that Paedophile that they were bad or wrong? I know I certainly wouldn't.
I struggle with you equating religion to bad human nature. And that if it is a religious belief that we are all born bad how we can succumb to the idea that the human condition cannot change - is that not what repentance is all about, I would have thought? 'Many bad things have happened because good people said nothing.' That's one to think about but there are plenty of examples in the political area where good people who do speak out are generally tortured. Amnesty International is one of the frontliners in highlighting that. But I do see your point being in a religious context. cont.......
I'm open to trying to understand this indoctrinated religious belief. My only experience of it though is watching 'World's strictest parents' and last week they had a strict Jewish family in Israel and this week a strict Muslim family in Lebanon. It is an eye-opener to see the parents and what lengths they go to inorder to indoctrinate their children in their beliefs. But as we both agree these people have the right to believe what they want and they promote that in their own countries - You are subjected to that when you visit their Country. Most people who do emigrate abroad try to balance their beliefs within their adoptive community - but that is contentious I know and probably for another day.
Thanks for the compliment in your 2nd post. It is an on-going debate and I'm not sure if I have the time, energy or inclination to debate. I mean look at the time now! I'm only on because I said I would be. I don't think its a resistance issue - it's just that how does one equate a scientific or factual viewpoint against a metaphysical one? They're on a difficult plane altogether - In my view - pretty incompatible at this point in time. I mean, I re-read afew times some of the stuff you wrote and I can't fault it, there's so much truth there but yet at the same time I just can't seem to accept it. Maybe that is resistance and in time I might realise the truth of some of what you say but I can't seem to accept that now - and I'm not even religious or have been religiously indoctrinated as you say. Maybe I will never accept it. Who knows?
Thanks for the compliment in your 2nd post. It is an on-going debate and I'm not sure if I have the time, energy or inclination to debate. I mean look at the time now! I'm only on because I said I would be. I don't think its a resistance issue - it's just that how does one equate a scientific or factual viewpoint against a metaphysical one? They're on a difficult plane altogether - In my view - pretty incompatible at this point in time. I mean, I re-read afew times some of the stuff you wrote and I can't fault it, there's so much truth there but yet at the same time I just can't seem to accept it. Maybe that is resistance and in time I might realise the truth of some of what you say but I can't seem to accept that now - and I'm not even religious or have been religiously indoctrinated as you say. Maybe I will never accept it. Who knows?
Since the post didn't appear yesterday and I'm not going to repeat alot of it. I shall get to the point. Naomi if you think above is a tirade - here's a no-holds barred, uncontrolled one for you, should be right up your street. Since you so clearly love to personally criticize others - I mean if you can dish it out - then you can certaintly take it back. And I'm not apologising for any of it - but that's pointless to you anyway.
-Patronize you?? Try reading the 2nd para of your last Mallam post and tell me if that is not patronising? How about the 'advice' you give him in the same post?
- Try re-reading over the other confrontations on that thread with people and do you notice a common theme that they become silent. It happens on most of your other threads.
-You can't take criticism - forget personal, any type of criticism winds you up. Your response is either sarcastic or to resort to bullying - you just won't give up until the other person ends it. And if you're on the defensive you act as if its all game? I mean where do people stand with you?
- Obvious really because how often do you actually apologise? Not one of your strenghts i take it.
And what does this mean exactly - 'My mother always told me 'you're judged by the company you keep' and it would serve you well to remember that.' I converse on a topic with whoever is on. I certaintly don't go seeking people. Right now I'm in your company - Are you implying that we're in some way similiar?....As much as I like you.....I hope thats not what you're implying? cont.....
-Patronize you?? Try reading the 2nd para of your last Mallam post and tell me if that is not patronising? How about the 'advice' you give him in the same post?
- Try re-reading over the other confrontations on that thread with people and do you notice a common theme that they become silent. It happens on most of your other threads.
-You can't take criticism - forget personal, any type of criticism winds you up. Your response is either sarcastic or to resort to bullying - you just won't give up until the other person ends it. And if you're on the defensive you act as if its all game? I mean where do people stand with you?
- Obvious really because how often do you actually apologise? Not one of your strenghts i take it.
And what does this mean exactly - 'My mother always told me 'you're judged by the company you keep' and it would serve you well to remember that.' I converse on a topic with whoever is on. I certaintly don't go seeking people. Right now I'm in your company - Are you implying that we're in some way similiar?....As much as I like you.....I hope thats not what you're implying? cont.....
Yes you're a long-time user, how many others have not tolerated your bullying ways? How often have you said 'go and do your research, do your homework'? Is that not arrogance on a site about debate? Or is that your way of finally controlling a thread? Take a leaf from Beso - that guy knows how to debate.
Arguments Naomi are good for the soul and if you don't believe in the soul, then the personality. It's good to get it all off the 'chest'. Say it as it is, let rip and then maybe or maybe not we can move on?.....
Arguments Naomi are good for the soul and if you don't believe in the soul, then the personality. It's good to get it all off the 'chest'. Say it as it is, let rip and then maybe or maybe not we can move on?.....
naomi, thank you for that link. Yes, of course I remember Mallam now - he's the one who went on and on with a great air of authority while cheerfully admitting that he couldn't be bothered to check things. I introduced Cinderella's slipper to get things back into perspective, only to be corrected (helpfully) in turn. Haven't heard of Mallam since. (Must send off the Quiz today)
I'm happy Naomi you didn't respond heavily, people are meant to learn from clashing and whether you agree or not with what I say, I do hope you consider it before dismissing it. That's the part I like about you, you are intelligent enough to do that. Maybe you can tell me one day if you totally disagreed with everything?
Some interesting points of view.
Like many of you, I was brought up a Christian but found it difficult to believe in from the age of about 11 and clearly I no longer believe in a God at all.
I found that transition quite normal and haven't had the experience that many of you seem to - of a great epiphany where the scales fell from my eyes or the subsequent feeling of immense satisfaction. That may be because my mum is still very much a believer and I've seen first hand the strength that she's drawn from it during some very tough times.
Could she have drawn strength from thinking about life in a non-religious, Dawkinsesque way? Almost certainly. Does that bother me? Nope. Religion having a role in government or education or wider society is wrong, as far as I'm concerned. But I can't say I derive any intellectual arousal from putting a case against religion when it comes to people's own lives. Y'know, whatever gets you through. :-)
Like many of you, I was brought up a Christian but found it difficult to believe in from the age of about 11 and clearly I no longer believe in a God at all.
I found that transition quite normal and haven't had the experience that many of you seem to - of a great epiphany where the scales fell from my eyes or the subsequent feeling of immense satisfaction. That may be because my mum is still very much a believer and I've seen first hand the strength that she's drawn from it during some very tough times.
Could she have drawn strength from thinking about life in a non-religious, Dawkinsesque way? Almost certainly. Does that bother me? Nope. Religion having a role in government or education or wider society is wrong, as far as I'm concerned. But I can't say I derive any intellectual arousal from putting a case against religion when it comes to people's own lives. Y'know, whatever gets you through. :-)
The idea that religion should not be criticised is deeply ingrained in western society and is seen as a symbol of advanced morality. Consequently it should be no surprise that many people are uncomfortable taking a look at religion and will take the discussion in various directions away from the central issues. It is human instinct to avoid what is uncomfortable.
The same strategies have always been used to avoid uncomfortable realisations accompanying advances in issues such as women's rights, racial equality, slavery or colonialism. Those who opposed change for whatever reason created a variety of distractions and often derailed the progress toward change. Those like Ghandi who kept the focus on the real issue of their cause succeeded.
When the debate moves away from the real issues, the best course is to refocus on the topic. Being distracted into petty personality games loses that focus and serves the purpose of the theists and those who support their indemnity.
The same strategies have always been used to avoid uncomfortable realisations accompanying advances in issues such as women's rights, racial equality, slavery or colonialism. Those who opposed change for whatever reason created a variety of distractions and often derailed the progress toward change. Those like Ghandi who kept the focus on the real issue of their cause succeeded.
When the debate moves away from the real issues, the best course is to refocus on the topic. Being distracted into petty personality games loses that focus and serves the purpose of the theists and those who support their indemnity.
I don't know why you suppose personal attacks are the prerogative of theists, beso. Looking back through this thread, I see some personal criticism, for instance, of Mallam, who dared to disagree with the originator of another thread. She claims he ruined the argument; it seemed to me he just won it. Whatever, it hardly seems to me that his alleged personal wickedness had any effect on the substance of his argument. So why raise it?
My own answer, for what it's worth, is that personal criticism is endemic to humans, regardless of whether they're believers or not, and does not 'serve' one side of the argument better than the other.
My own answer, for what it's worth, is that personal criticism is endemic to humans, regardless of whether they're believers or not, and does not 'serve' one side of the argument better than the other.
My previous post was more or less at Naomi's but I found while I wrote it that several other posts appeared.
I did not mea it to appear that I thought others were changing the subject.
Quinlad. I am making a stand on religion because I believe its doctrine lies at the foundation of our problems as a global society. Religion is destroying us as part of its grand plan of fulfilling the Armageddon prophecy. It is everyone's right to choose their battles and nobody is expected to be front line on everything.
However the central issue is the right of people to speak against religious philospphy without being personally attacked and a view by wider society that immunity from criticism should not be expected by anyone. I only ask that people promote these values. In open debate religion fails to impress and its demise is inevitable once we are allowed to engage in criticical review without being labelled as trouble makers stiring up religious hatred.
And we have a duty not to be guilty of those accusations by discussion though honest, respectful debate.
Someone famous said words to the effect:
I disagree with your assertion but would fight for your right to express it.
The real quote is more powerful. Anyone know it?
I did not mea it to appear that I thought others were changing the subject.
Quinlad. I am making a stand on religion because I believe its doctrine lies at the foundation of our problems as a global society. Religion is destroying us as part of its grand plan of fulfilling the Armageddon prophecy. It is everyone's right to choose their battles and nobody is expected to be front line on everything.
However the central issue is the right of people to speak against religious philospphy without being personally attacked and a view by wider society that immunity from criticism should not be expected by anyone. I only ask that people promote these values. In open debate religion fails to impress and its demise is inevitable once we are allowed to engage in criticical review without being labelled as trouble makers stiring up religious hatred.
And we have a duty not to be guilty of those accusations by discussion though honest, respectful debate.
Someone famous said words to the effect:
I disagree with your assertion but would fight for your right to express it.
The real quote is more powerful. Anyone know it?
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles79 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles135 mins ago
ChatterBank176 mins ago
ChatterBank182 mins ago
