BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:51 AM

By the way Mrrzy..are you a Barister at Law or similar....Your little speech before the court with all its drawn conclusions smacks of the courtroom battle which you feel you have to win. What you fail to recognise is that I am not on trial here...I am here because I choose to be...that does not give you the right to try to prove my guilt! LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 10 Feb 08 - 03:42 AM

By suggesting that bigotry should not be justified by Christians..am I not also suggesting that bigotry in any form IMPO should not be respected? Does that then also suggest to you that I would also not expect you to respect it. I am sorry if I am not spelling it out exactly as you wish but please do not try to put words into my mouth.
Best wishes, Mike.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 10:53 PM

Oh, I didn't mean to rush you (*BG*)! It's just that you weren't, and still are not, answering the actual question.

I didn't ask if bigotry could be justified by Christians. Nor did I ask if any other religions justify bigotry. Nor did I accuse any religions of justifying bigotry (at least not in this hypothetical!).

I asked whether, if a person's bigotry is faith-based, I have to respect it (assuming you agree that if their bigotry is NOT faith-based, I don't). I explained this very clearly in my previous clarification. However, once again you've instead repeated something you'd already said and which had already been noted as irrelevent - sp?) about christianity and other particular religions.

I therefore conclude (again) that you would say Yes, faith-based beliefs are protected and must be respected, even if they are bigoted.

I also continue to see you as not wanting to say so. This is why instead you say something else that isn't what is asked but defends your faith, which isn't under question in this hypothetical.

I also, therefore, conclude (again) that you know quite well that your position that faith-based beliefs should be respected simply because they are faith-based, is untenable in this hypothetical.

I therefore also conclude (again, again) that you actually agree that respecting faith-based beliefs is wrong when those beliefs are wrong.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 06:59 PM

Sorry for the lateness of reply but have a life outside the 'Cat' Mrrzy.....I believe that bigotry in any form should not be justified by Christians..I cannot answer for other religions. Sad to say that religion is used in that way both historically and present day.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 02:34 PM

Hehehe... I was wondering who was going to do the ominous post no.666! ;-))

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 01:42 PM

Georgiansilver, why can you not answer the question that is actually *asked*? Which is:

If A hypothetical Person A - NOT you or anybody you know personally - uses theirreligion - NOT yours - to justify any bigotry, do we have to respect that bigotry?

I believe your answer, to be consistent with what you have posted so far, will have to be Yes. I also believe you realize that such a position is actually undefendable, and that, therefore, you are refusing to address the actual question.

Please disabuse me of this notion if I'm wrong. And please explain how that makes sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 09 Feb 08 - 04:44 AM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 07:39 PM

Aw, Jeeze, GS!! Is that right?? Dammit, who let W and Huckabee out of catechism school that day? Does Karl Rove and Dick Cheny know Jesus commanded that? DANG! This could change everything.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Georgiansilver
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 06:16 PM

Mrrzy....as a Christian I am anti the sin of a man lying with another man as man does a woman but we are COMMANDED by Jesus/God/Holy Spirit...to love everyone in spite of their sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:09 PM

Bill D - we'd be in a continued state of whining, pleading and complaining to and about such a deity. - isn't that the description of being prayerful, asked with tongue only slightly in cheek? Oh, never mind, now that I've read farther, you say so yourself.

Here is something I've asked this on the "other" thread, but would like to repeat here: Suppose you have 2 people, both of whom are anti-(pick a group, my example was homosexuals), one for religious reasons, one for other, secular reasons. Is the first one's (what I would call bigotry) to be respected because it's part of their religion? Is the second one just bigoted? Would your REASON for your prejudice matter, depending on whether it fell under what is called "freedom of religion" or not? Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:08 PM

Bee, what you say makes for me a good attractive reason to move to Canada.

What is it about the First Amendment to the Constitution Americans don't understand?
(And why does it take a Canadian to explain it to them?)

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 04:11 PM

Interesting about Gould wishing for a God. I can see why: faced with sad and tedious situations if life, it IS tempting to imagine some way to 'magically' solve your problems...whether with prayer or personal power..(I get letters 'suggesting' that God intervenes and sends $$$$$ my way...if I just send a few $$ back..after kissing the 'secret, sealed card' enclosed.)

But I have grave doubts that we could psychologically handle it if seemingly random intervention by a Supreme Being were a demonstrable, everyday fact. (by this, I mean 'announced' it's decision, and perhaps explained why).If a god clearly and openly 'cured' some cancers and saved some people from terrible things like tornadoes and plane crashes...and didn't save others.... we'd be in a continued state of whining, pleading and complaining to and about such a deity.
As it is, some people 'get well' from bad diseases ...some walk away from bad accidents while those beside them perish...and IF a god has anything to do with it, we get no explanation. We just see results and some give 'thanks', though no one ever say "you're welcome". (...you know...kinda like Max & the clones deleting posts and threads..*wry grin*).

I think that IF I were to design a universe, and put some OverLord being in charge of it, I'd warn him/her/it NOT to discuss changes or start doing favors for the denizens, as there'd be no rest and endless complaints about service!....oh..like we have now.

   If I were to actually encounter a genuine, obvious, miracle-working god, I'd probably ruin my eternity by insisting on some answers to some pretty heavy questions. I simply do not LIKE the common explanation of the 'rules' I hear from various supposed earthly spokesmen for this 'god'...even if he IS as powerful and concerned with my behavior as I'm told. I don't like being told that I have free will & intelligence and then that if I use it to question some pretty strange rules, that I will suffer forever for daring to doubt.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 01:21 PM

Thanks for your input, Ebbie, and as far as I'm concerned, you do too get brownie points!

Stephen Jay Gould really, really wished there were a god, especially while he was dying of that awful cancer, or interacting with his autistic son.

And science *can* speak to what ought to be - for instance, there are no clear-cut biological distinctions among the races, which supports the idea that there ought not to be racism. (But if there were such biological divisions, racism would still be wrong, so then again, maybe not. Maybe it's SCIENTISTS who can speak to the right/wrong thingie).

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: bobad
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 08:43 AM

Religion simplified

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST,PMB
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 05:38 AM

Sorry that were me.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Feb 08 - 03:56 AM

Stephen Jay Gould made a fundamental point about the science/ regigion debate. He pointed out that science is entirely about what is, and has nothing to say about what ought to be. For example, the scientific fact of evolution by natural selection says nothing whatsoever about how we should treat the mentally handicapped. He supported the idea of "non- overlapping magisteria" (NOMA)- the idea that science says nothing about morals, and religion has nothing to say about the physical systems that constitute the Universe of nmatter.

Which I broadly agree with. Except that I disagree that the NOMA of moral and social behaviour is the exclusive magisterium of religion. Matters of how humans should relate to each other, how we should interact with the environment, what is "art", what constitutes 'good' and 'evil'- all these are the magisterium of novels, plays, music, plastic arts- and to my mind religious belief is (just) one more expression of these spiritual (with a small s) considerations. Read the Bible (or Koran, or Upanishads) as a collection of stories, and you will learn much about the evolution of morality; read it as an infallible book of rules and prescriptions, and you are guilty of failing to learn the lessons of all that has happened since they were written.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:28 PM

Well definitions may vary, and you could certainly say that faith of the kind you describe, Joe, is not empirical. But I don't preclude it from being rational, because the measure of rationality is how one acquires data and how one processes it once one ha sit. You have some intuitive data which you sense is valid even though there is no obvious way to render it empirical, and you have the strength to keep your own counsel built on your own sens eof truth. There is nothing irrational about that UNLESS you admit some sort of rule that says everyone must cleave ONLY to what is demonstrable, but that is a bit reminiscent of the early Bolshies or something. I don't think faith is irrational, but I think trying to induce it in others by talking about it usually is, because the best you usually get is a poor second-hand copy.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:20 PM

Well, I guess you could call me one of "the faithful." I'd agree that what I believe is not primarily rational, otherwise it wouldn't be faith. But yeah, if you call me irrational, I might be insulted. It might be the truth - but it's because of other things, not because of my religious beliefs. "Irrational" is different from "not rational."

But generally, I think it's safe to say that the premises of religious faith are not fundamentally rational. The doctrines that are drawn from those beliefs may be rational, however.

Still, I think that I think that most of us operate on rational systems that are based on fundamental premises that are not essentially rational.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Ebbie
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:16 PM

Well, I have finally caught up with reading this thread(these threads) in its entirety. It's been interesting, to say the least. I would guess that my views will fall harmlessly into the void but I want to express them anyway. I don't get any Brownie points for all this reading so surely I deserve my say? *g*

A coupld of thoughts, first: Rig, as well as others, talks about a Christian feeling that s/he can do anything because after all, the act is forgiven. I suspect that any Christian theologian would say that only the forgiveness is without stint. The consequences of said sin may be inexorable.

As to whether a zygote or embryo is already human, as NickHere contends, let me note that we announce "I'm going to be a father!" or "You're going to be a grandmother!" Until the baby is born, we don't say, "I'm a mother" or "You are a grandfather."

Mrrzy asks, "Did you ever read Lord of the Flies", thereby plucking the strings of one of my pet peeves. I would respond: It is fiction. No one knows the end result in reality of such a situation.

To go on:

I expect that any person over the age of 5, say, is familiar with the feeling of love, whether for their SO, their child, their home or community, or whatever. I, personally, don't believe that it partakes more than tangentially of the fierce motherhood or even the need(s) of reproduction that we accept are in all nature. If it were more than that, I think we would be content with achieving the safety and full belly of our offspring. So from what does this love stem?

I suppose that the spiritual can exist without a god. The concept, however, gives me the feeling of floundering. Just can't quite get my head around it, mostly because if there is a spiritual aspect to life, one is agreeing to the existence of spirit and where does that lead one to but back to the transcendant, to a god forsooth.

And if there is a god or gods, it doesn't seem that far a leap to believing that there is a supreme being.

That said, I don't have a clue as to whether there is a personal god. I find it difficult to believe that a god cares whether it rains on me or if I am able to catch my bus. (I do know that I believe that if there is a God, that entity does not endorse or even recognize the borders of neighboring countries {Which is why I have a problem with jingoism}.

Speaking of God as an entity reminds me that I do NOT believe that God is a HE nor a SHE; I see no reason to believe that God has either a penis or ovaries. If God is anything, it is a spirit. Unless there isa a dimension of being that we don't yet know.

There. Now this thread can die. Or live on into infinity... :)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:34 PM

(Well, he DID invite comment...) (OK, I'm done now.)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 03:22 PM

yep...it is a problem in the hardest cases to show 'respect'...except in a very formal way.

It really depends on what you are struggling with, however. If you are trying to keep your kid's textbooks from being filled with barely disguised creationist propaganda, almost anything goes! The school needs to teach what science is doing and has clear evidence for, and leave biblical interpretation to their church.
   Here...in a forum, we need to carefully discriminate between 'debates' over evidence and logic and reason...(debates which I have often entered to clarify MY position) and simply emotional, non-compromising 'statements' of absolute certainty.
Slag has made it clear that he has all the answers he cares to, and couches it as if it is revealed truth. He believes he "knows Jesus"..etc., and all discussion proceeds from that stance....therefore, it is of little use to try to carry on a 'debate' in a thread started IN ORDER to announce his strength of belief.

Sure...it is true...anyone who starts a thread with a controversial theme 'ought' to know he will get responses. I TRIED to tell Slag that just preaching was out of place...but I can hardly stop him, so I limit myself to the basics....and I hope we can drop the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 02:03 PM

I would normally completely agree, but we've BEEN doing the compassionate, polite thing, and look where it's gotten us, here in the Southern US. That is why so many of us think the time for "respect" is past for those who insist on denying demonstrated reality - not for *all* believers of *all* myths. My kids are in public school here in the Old Dominion... I can hardly wait to see what nonsense will happen when they take high school biology.

And the people I talk to about this are not, usually, those whose knee-jerk reflex defenses will just harden, but really thinking, intellegent people who would, one would think, allow their assumptions to be challenged, and answer those challenges thoughtfully. And most of the conversations within these threads have been like that. As I've said before, those who resent having their beliefs challenged may want to think about not posting them in a discussion forum.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:19 PM

..having faith in a personal god or any other "higher power" is, at best, just plain silly.

Well, Mrrzy...I have to disgree. I am not religious. I am 99+% sure that it is just myth and wishful thinking. But it is far from 'silly'.
The philosophically *1st* question is "why is there something, rather than nothing?"...and humans have puzzled over it as long they could frame the question.
Religion is one way of answering the question and coping with the mystery of it all...and for most of the history of humanity, religious answers were the norm, and only the details were debated. Very complex systems have grown up around some of the attempts to sort it all out, and entire cultures are predicated on various of the answers...with VERY compelling and intense emotional hooks to sustain belief. (who is not impresses by cathedrals and requiem Masses?)

   Now, even though there are, to some of us, clear reasons for doubting the reality of the supposed inspiration for religious systems, they are nevertheless buried deeply in most human psyches....and simply stating that they are 'silly' or 'contrary to logic' is not going to impress someone who has guided their life by the basic concepts.

*IF* you & I are correct in our skepticism, we need to realize that it is close to impossible for most humans to simply 'change their minds', and that only a gradual alteration over generations through education and gentle setting of good examples is likely to be effective.

   In the meantime, we MUST find a way to co-exist with believers....while resisting regular attempts by certain groups to **impose** some religious views and rules on society at large. We must codify and enforce 'separation of church & state'...politely but firmly... while allowing those who are committed to a religious perspective to practice and worship freely, and to respect them as honest people, as long as they are willing to respect us similarly.

Do I see the problems with this? Of course I do! A religion that commands "..go forth and become fishers of men" will have adherents who test our resolve. *wry smile*...but I don't relish trying to restrain them except by orderly means. Remember...they BELIEVE they are doing us a favor!

What more can I say? An aphorism? "You can catch more files with honey...etc"? In any case, ridiculing folks deeply held beliefs only hardens their defenses and creates enmity. People believe...partially...because it feels good; and partially because they are afraid not to. That's a lot to ask folks to give up.

In many ways, 'belief' in a 'heavenly answer' is by FAR the easiest way to cope with misery, poverty, death and the unknown. There are other ways...but not easy ones to explain to those who can barely grasp why you're trying and see you as just a surrogate of the 'devil' they were taught to fear.

It's complicated...and it's important... but there's a lot to be gained by a more compassionate approach.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

Did she tell you that she's glad that you aren't threatened by the fact that your siblings are much more successful than you are? If so, we may be related.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:38 AM

Yeah, Mom has those kinds of compliments too. And if you say something like Nice haircut, she gets all Oh, was it awful before?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM

It's a Dutch name;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM

Zingerslinger - I like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

Well Mrrzy, Old Bob here was practically forced into atheism by the circumstance of being raised in the Dutch Reformed Triangle. Hellfire and Damnation would have been a welcome alternative to the cold, mean-spirited, atmosphere created by "The Faithful". Anyway, as a sympathetic fellow traveller, let me tell you that you and yours(such as Riginslinger, who ought to change his name to Zingerslinger) have given better than you got.

When you tell "The Faithful" that they are irrational, they are insulted. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of them need to be insulted, but they don't thank you for it.

I had a rather aunt who used to say things like, "You keep a clean house and set a nice table. I can't imagine why your husband left you" , and "A lot of women look dumpy when they move into the plus sizes, but you pull it off."   She was always surprised at the way that people reacted to her honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:21 AM

And here I thought this thread was about to fall off the bottom of the page! I am glad to see it back.

I think that the acrimony our darling Joe Offer mentions has been incredibly one-sided - I don't think any of the atheists have said anything insulting to any of the believers other than expressing the idea that having faith in a personal god or any other "higher power" is, at best, just plain silly. On the other hand, I, and probably others in this (and "the other") thread, have been called abusive, accused of attempting single-handedly to shut down the entire mudcat Forum with our meanness, and worse.

I have not actually felt insulted by all the insults I've received - I hear challenged assumptions fracturing painfully - nor have I reported to "The Authorities" the kinds of threats and abuse I've been getting in PMs and in the threads. I have to admit that my assumption is that, if anybody wanted this thread closed, it would be the believers who are upset with having their assumptions challenged, but I realize that I have no data behind that assumption. I'd be interested in those data.

However, I have this to say, with a big grin:

Oh, come on. Grow up. If you don't want this thread in your life, don't read it. And stop insulting the messenger when you can't answer the questions in the message. If you want to express your faith, don't be so hurt when others question your expression. It's just a discussion forum, folks.

Lecture off.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM

Huckabee might be smart in the sense that he's a good in-fighter, but he's hopelessly addicted to the Baptist religion which renders him incapable of making rational decisions.
                      Substance abuse is a big problem in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:45 PM

Huckabee is smart--don't let the name fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:29 PM

I guess I thought I was the only one who noticed that!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:41 PM

You've got it wrong, Riginslinger, Huckabee says he believes that John McCain is 6,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:36 PM

Well, out of honor to Offer I would like to just add that my fight is not against any sacrament or religion, but against the implicit ill will inherent in rampant and absolutist proselytization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

And Mike Huckabee, who happily announces that he thinks the world is only 6,000 years old, and who is angling for a VP spot behind a candidate who would take the oath of office at the age of 71, is not stupid?
             Let's see, I need to check my dictionary:
            Stupid: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:14 PM

I guess I have to say I'm tired of all this. I believe in God, and that belief brings a depth to my life that I wouldn't have otherwise. Other people don't believe in God, and a forced belief would make them shallow.

All of these words that have been fired back and forth end up saying the same thing:

• Some believers think nonbelievers are awful, and also feel persecuted by nonbelievers
• Some nonbelievers think believers are awful, and also feel persecuted by believers
• Some people think all of this is really silly. People have a right to their own beliefs and ideas, and should be respected for that.

I have been asked to close this thread because of all the acrimony expressed. I'm unwilling to do that, but I would hope that most Mudcatters fall in the third category. I guess the rest of you in categories one and two are going to continue to duke it out, whether I close this thread or not. So, fight on - but remember that a number of us think you are really quite stupid to be fighting about this.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:29 PM

HArd-nosed realism, or dour gravid pessimism, hell, I con't tell the differtence at this point. My sense is both tactics miss th emark and misunderestimate the man seriously.

We'll see. HE has legs, is what I think, and enough sand to make a mark, and probably win over McCain. But we are just flashing our respective bilious instincts around at this juncture.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:37 PM

Frankly, I think if they send in Barack, we'll end up with a Republican president. He would have a better chance running against Romney, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM

In the present instance, not such a bad situation, fortunately.


Especially if they send in Barack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:43 PM

A perfect example of how the deluded make life miserable for the rest of us.

            Mike Huckabee, thinking Mormonism is a cult, and not realizing that Baptism is no different, stays in the Republican race and takes Virginia away from Romney, helping to insure a McCain win for the nomination.

            Huckabee's inability to see that the world is more than six-thousand years old, combined with his failure to grasp the reality that Baptism is a cult too, deprives voters in November from casting a vote for Romney. They get John-all-war-all-the-time-McCain, or a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM

OK, maybe now Internet Explorer will stop quitting on me... I'm so glad you wished me luck! Musta worked!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:00 AM

How about all those left over FEMA trailers that never got used after Katrina. Maybe there are some gods in some of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

*BG!* Also, critiquing those with whom you agree is usually taken as a favor, IME.

And it is exactly that ability I thought I was working on! Yikes!

(gotta go, computer guy has finally happened! Wish me luck - (ducking)!)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 04:21 PM

*grin*..well, Mrrzy..you neatly compressed and avoided what I said about rationality. I didn't suggest for a second that YOU 'ignored bad rationality'.....neither do I. I have fought it for many years.
   What I said was "you tend to ignore the ability of minds which are emotionally committed to a viewpoint to USE bad rationality ...etc." ...which is a VERY different point.

It pains me to feel like I need to occasionally critique those I basically agree with, but unless we are content to an interminable "yes you do" "no I don't" shouting match, we need to temper the FORM of our debate a bit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Peanuts cartoon:


Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM

FFRF = Freedom From Religion Foundation. They are very aggressive in separation of church and state. So is the ACLU, actually. Unfortunately, it's the "privacy" part that gets lost, on both sides - many atheists want believers to acknowledge the irrationality of faith, and many believers want religion in hthe public sphere.

As you can probably tell, I'm more in the former camp than the latter, but if believers WOULD keep their faith private, I might not be. Except for the children, of course. Kids' right to a full education way, way outweighs any parental privilege of freedom of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:30 PM

"Possibly what we need is a militant, aggressive group defending the separation of church and state and the right to absolute individual privacy and sovereignty of choice in all religious matters."

CORRECT - and when you find one - sign me up.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM

Thanks, BillD - but one slight correction, I don't ignore the bad rationality, I try to challenge it... and not fall into it, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:25 PM

POssibly what we need is amilitant, aggressive group defending the separation of church and state and the right to absolute individual privacy and sovereignty of choice in all religious matters. There is a very clear (to me, anyway) divising line where the freedom of belief ends and the responsibility for the civic commons begins, a space into which religious beliefs should not be entered no matter how much they inform the private mind and its decision-making process.

The reason for "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is not philsophical or religious but practical. Religious considerations have no traction or merit on Caesar's turf, whether it is an empire or a representative republic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:23 PM

Mrrzy... you tend to ignore the ability of minds which are emotionally committed to a viewpoint to USE bad rationality to claim that logic & reason are merely subjective attitudes and no better than their 'personal experience'.
   Until you really comprehend just how 'true belief' feels & works, you cannot conduct any meaningful dialog with them. And 'they' need to understand how non-believers think. That's why I posted those links above.

Honest people on BOTH sides can learn the various rationale for the other's positions...if they will take the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

As I said before - Those who are happy with the way things are won't need to do a thing.