 sj |
||
|
||
BS: The God Delusion 2010
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: John P Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:28 PM What funny ideas are you talking about? It's hard to respond to such a general statement . . . |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:25 PM Which two do you think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 11 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM Um, which two? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Nov 10 - 10:18 PM You two have some pretty odd ideas. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Nov 10 - 09:14 PM They don't need to be educated *about* atheism. They just need to be educated, the lack of belief in deity will follow logically. They should certinly be educated about what all religions teach, but they will be if they take philosophy or history. Atheists don't have beliefs, anyway. At least, not "atheist" beliefs, that is oxymoronic. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:44 PM If you are saying that the only two things they should be educated about are Atheism and whatever religion they are raised in, I disagree on two fronts. First I want to see the Atheist convention where Atheist beliefs are universally agreed upon. Then I would like to see all other faiths covered in a way that satisfies all. Where does this come from, Jacko? Did Aunt Sally tell you this? So you don't want to see a faith convention where religious beliefs are universally agreed on. I simply love the way you set the bar at equal heights for both. :-) Also, would you care to tell us where you've seen big discrepancies in "atheist beliefs?" Answers, Jack, we want answers!! :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 10 Nov 10 - 05:38 PM Pete, you are asking questions that Darwin answered and which have been backed up by science ever since. There's no point even trying to respond unless you promise us you'll read On The Origin Of Species, or at least a modern digest of it. And just cut out the creationist scientist bit. It's the king of oxymorons. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:34 PM If Parents want to send their kids to a privately funded religious school. That's cool. If you are saying that the only two things they should be educated about are Atheism and whatever religion they are raised in, I disagree on two fronts. First I want to see the Atheist convention where Atheist beliefs are universally agreed upon. Then I would like to see all other faiths covered in a way that satisfies all. If you can't do both, the ways it is done now is better. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:26 PM Citing creation scientists is way, way far from reasonable. Unless you are citing them as idiots. Read "the greatest show on earth" - or just leaf through it - if you want hard data on evolution. Watch out, though, it's authored by Dawkins and he is an impossible read. What mechanism besides selection within variation do you need? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 10 Nov 10 - 03:07 PM some of your suggestions seemed more reasonable than i expected,though couched in rigidly atheist terms. it is probably not uniformly practical but presentations to older children from both ends of the debate would seem fair. my citing creationist scientists is at least as reasonable as the assertions you continually make.you may recall that i invited evolutionists to give me their take on the complexity of cells.how do mechanisms that are not known to gain information provide an upward evolutionary path?.why is it not more reasonable that such complexity is created ?.dr matti leisola realized this even while a student and asked his professors how evolution could create biological novelties:"they of course had stories but when it came to mechanisms (which science is all about)of evolution they had no real explanations.later i started to present evidence for the limits of random change in scientific conferences of my own field and till now nobody has disagreed" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 PM OK Steve, what you suggest seems reasonable.Not sure it presents a solution to issues you seemed to raise earlier, but would likely have some impact. No state involvement in religion. I don't believe this is an issue where I live, as I see a clear separation. But, I see this is not the case in all countries. A fair interpretation of the Bible is reasonable. It could possibly be encouraged in homes, eventually making some impact. But, making an impact in churches is likely problematic. But, if I understand trends, churches have less influence on today's young anyway...though I am unsure if that's true in non-western nations? Because it was seen a good course at the time, we mostly followed what you put forward while raising our two children. My son is an Atheist. My daughter is a believer in a God, but not a member of any organized religion, much like me and the children's (now young adults) mother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:58 PM "Religion get a privileged, free ride all too often. That would be a good start. And very fair." Clumsy wording from me. I meant that all the other stuff I suggested would be a good start, not religion getting a free ride. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:33 PM how are children to make informed decisions if the militant atheists succeed in removing instruction from them? How are children to make informed decisions when they are routinely told that the religion they had the mischance to be born into is the one, true faith? That they will be forced to sit in classrooms under crucifixes and periodically made to bow their heads down in prayer? You've unintentionally put your finger on the problem. It isn't "instruction" they need. It's education. at the same time they insist macro evolution be taught as fact despite other scientific opinions ,which they deny but are there -like it or not, We insist that evolution is taught in a scientifically-honest way and not put side by side with utterly bogus, non-scientific "alternatives" such as intelligent design/creationism. And if you think there are "other scientific opinions" that deny evolution, let's have 'em please. And don't waste your breath telling me that there are "creationist scientists" out there. You've tried that one before. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 06:03 PM So, if it were up to you, specifically what are your concrete suggestions to ensure that parents don't tell children such religious lies", (your interpretation), who would do it and how, and who and how would it be enforced in any country? It isn't my interpretation. It may be, on the other hand, a less than diplomatic way of putting it, but when children are being peddled myths as truth I don't feel like being diplomatic. If you tell children that this and that is in the Bible, and tell them that the Bible is very old and incomplete and not always even in agreement with itself, good. But if you tell them that the Bible is true, you're lying to them. If you tell them that many people think the Bible is true but some others ask questions, good. If you tell them that the Bible is the word of God, you're lying to them. If you tell them that a lot of people think the Bible is the word of God, but that other people have these doubts, good. As for solutions, that is not easy. I think that states should have nothing to do with religion. There should be no taxpayer-subsidised faith schools or similar institutions. There should be no "Church of England." There should be no religious leaders in public positions of influence, in the House of Lords for example. The BBC should not be broadcasting, at taxpayers' expense, religious broadcasts of any kind. Religion get a privileged, free ride all too often. That would be a good start. And very fair. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:25 PM how are children to make informed decisions if the militant atheists succeed in removing instruction from them?.at the same time they insist macro evolution be taught as fact despite other scientific opinions ,which they deny but are there -like it or not. surely access to all sides should be afforded our students so they can decide for themselves. steve-i dont see my logic as terrible but thankyou for you answer. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:10 PM "You say you got a real solution Well, you know We'd all love to see the plan" Revolution, The Beatles |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 09 Nov 10 - 04:05 PM "I don't think anyone is entitled to tell children lies" I suspect the first big hurdle to persuade people and families that such things are lies. The second would be to have a gigantic intervention in the family unit. Russia was officially an atheist state for 70 years after WW1. The government attempted to erase most aspects of religion. They were not successful, as many Russians declare themselves believers today (most tied to the official church, as in England). This shows some big resilience with religion, even with big government and social intervention. So, if it were up to you, specifically what are your concrete suggestions to ensure that parents don't tell children such religious lies", (your interpretation), who would do it and how, and who and how would it be enforced in any country? Now I am not say'in it can't be done...I'm just giving some perspective before you give us your strategy on how to do it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:54 PM You're WAY off on the isolated end of the shaky limb you have chosen to go out on in life, Mrzzy... Getting less and less shaky all the time, Little Hawk! Maybe you're not perched on it yet, but I have hopes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Amos Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:52 PM I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith. I have seen plenty of bright minds bent around an axle because they were thrown such wild curves by religious teachings. Since so much of religion is metaphorical it should be taught only when the young person is able to differentiate between reality and metaphor. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 09 Nov 10 - 03:44 PM Which art in the Rose and Crown Harold be thy name Thy will be done In the snug as it is in the taproom Give us this day our daily skinful And forgive us our indiscretions as we forget those who blather against us Lead us not into sobriety and deliver us from reality For thine is the license, the beer and the ashtrays But probably not forever Amen |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:52 PM And what "wild claim" was I supposed to be making? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:50 PM I think the parents can be trusted to impart the values, religious or otherwise that they see fit. I couldn't agree more. Of course it's the parents' right and duty to impart values. I don't even doubt that religion can and does impart good values (though the same good values can also be imparted without religion every time). But we are not talking about values, I'm afraid. We are talking about religious dogma, myth wrapped up as truth. I don't think anyone is entitled to tell children lies. This is what I object to, not the imparting of values. The Big Lie in religion is the certainty with which it is propagated. I think it's particularly immoral when children are involved. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:42 PM I think that you, Shaw and Mr. Dawkins, need to find some evidence to back up your wild claim. Damage? Ask the victims of Catholic child abuse about that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:28 PM I see a lot evidence that children are damaged by their parent's alcoholism. I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith. As I said, the two are not related and alcoholism is not relevant to this discussion. I'm not sure what you mean by my 'wild claim'. Do you think children should not be taught the difference between fact and opinion and not encouraged (or equipped) to think for themselves? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:02 PM As far as I'm concerned, children should be protected from both, and neither should be supported by the education system at all. I think the parents can be trusted to impart the values, religious or otherwise that they see fit. I see a lot evidence that children are damaged by their parent's alcoholism. I see little that they are damaged by their parents' faith. I think that you, Shaw and Mr. Dawkins, need to find some evidence to back up your wild claim. People can and often do choose to diverge from their parents as they approach the age of majority. It is their choice then. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Smokey. Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:29 PM I'm not entirely convinced that comparisons between religion and alcohol are relevant or productive.. As far as I'm concerned, children should be protected from both, and neither should be supported by the education system at all. That aside, one of the most important things a child can learn is the difference between fact and opinion. I was lucky, in that I seemed to work it out for myself at a very early age and my upbringing was not oppressive in any way. A great many children are not that lucky. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Nov 10 - 01:16 PM >>So can presidents take us to war because they say God has spoken to them.<< Wasn't that guy also and admitted alcoholic? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 12:35 PM Yep, booze can do all that. So can Macshiteburgers, milkshakes, pizzas, fries an' all that cause mass obesity, suffering 'n' early death, as well as environmental devastation. So can fundamentalists harass women who need abortions and so can popes consign millions to misery through wicked edicts about contraception in third world countries. So can presidents take us to war because they say God has spoken to them. Yeah. You say religion can do good. I don't doubt it for a minute. I say booze can do good too. We gotta be careful that we don't turn the world into an even greater vale of tears than it already is. A minority of people abuse alcohol. That is no reason to get all apocalyptic about it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ebbie Date: 09 Nov 10 - 11:18 AM A couple of thoughts here: Steve Shaw, you say 'he will want to go to the pub, which for most people is a jolly good thing to want to do. Quite apart from all the violence, broken homes, disease, bankruptcies and murders that have been a direct result over a thousand generations of pubs and its equivalents, you accept drinking as acceptable and fun and part and parcel of a normal society. Why is that? As far as going to church because the priest tells you to is concerned, many people get great comfort and peace and an affirmation of a sense of community from their attendance at church. The fact that they believe they got the comfort from their God should not be your concern. Some people from time to time get not only comfort and peace but are inspired, sometimes almost against their conscious wills, into participation in causes they had considered too dangerous to join. Who are we to say that that inspiration did not come from somewhere outside themselves? It may be somewhat the same thing many people get from a session of deep meditation but the end result is indisputable. Many a decision is made on metaphorical knees. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:58 AM You're WAY off on the isolated end of the shaky limb you have chosen to go out on in life, Mrzzy, but it's impossible for us to resolve it in posts on this public forum. PMs would work better, but would probably not solve it either. Therefore, I shall leave you happily to your particular concerns here and do something else instead for a bit. Enjoy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:14 AM Yep, when he's 18 he can go on his own. That's about right. I'd say the same for church services. Maybe 21. The difference is that he will want to go to the pub, which for most people is a jolly good thing to want to do. He won't be anywhere near as keen to go to church though. That's why religion likes to get 'em early. There is absolutely no other justification when you think about it. When you think for yourself about it. But at least religion would get the people who make a free choice, like you choose to go to the pub. That way it'll be leaner but fitter. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Nov 10 - 10:00 AM Oh, The kid will end up in the Pub. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 09:18 AM Daddy, You go to church, why can't I go to church? I'm sorry son, I can't take you to Church, you will have to wait until Steve Shaw and Richard Dawkins say it its OK. Daddy, You go to the pub, why can't I go to the pub? I'm sorry son, I can't take you to the pub, you will have to wait until the entirely sensible law of the land, that wiser people than I have set up for your protection, says it's OK. Or betting shop, or casino, or polling booth, or 18-certificate movie, or battle front... Yes, I really do believe that religious indoctrination is something that children need protecting from until they are old enough to be able to weigh, without pressure, the pros and cons. It's what a responsible society does about the things we decide are best suited to adults. I firmly believe that religion is one of those things. Indoctrination has the potential to damage children (wanna deny that, Jacko?). Of course, I don't mean religious education in its true sense. That is mandatory I reckon, and it would be a very good preparation, if properly delivered, for that day when the young adult is finally exposed to the doctrine. This won't work very well for religion, of course, which is why daddy thinks it's OK to take sonnyboy to church. The priest has told daddy so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 09 Nov 10 - 08:33 AM Daddy, You go to church, why can't I go to church? I'm sorry son, I can't take you to Church, you will have to wait until Steve Shaw and Richard Dawkins say it its OK. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 09 Nov 10 - 05:32 AM Sometimes I've thought I was the only one who thought it worth railing against the indoctrination of children. I regard that as among the nastiest things religion does, not only because it's done it an awful lot but also because it cheerily goes on doing it and has deliberately blinkered itself to the damage it does. This particular delusion is so comprehensive that millions of decent people can't see anything wrong with it and defend the practice to the hilt. In the UK we even force children to pray every day in school, and taxpayers fund faith schools almost without demur. I feel fortified by all the things you say (and I'm quite cuddly really). Cheers, Mrrzy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 09 Nov 10 - 02:19 AM Oh. I've splained a lot, not just in those posts. You must not have read a lot of what I've said over the years... and I had explained my personal horror stories previously. And of course expremism is worse than middle-of-the-road-ism, but even without all the death and dismemberment, denying evolution hurts all American schoolchildren. Replacing historical and biological fact with religious dogma hurts all American schoolchildren. Demonstrations at funerals that Yay, your loved one should be dead because there are gays in the military hurt all service members and all their families, and that's the christians. The unavailability of abortions hurt all women and all families, not just those who can't get the abortion they nd their medical practitioners have decided would be best for them and their families. And that's the regular, run-of-the-mill, mainstream American christians. None of that is considered "extreme" by modern standards. My crusade, as *you* call it, isn't against religion, nor even against faith. BUT - those are the only things that can make good people do evil things; nothing else would work. My argument has always been against those who try to justify their faith with rationality. It's faith, people, you have to take it on faith. As soon as you start bringing logic and intelligence into it, you are out of the realm of faith and should stop spouting dogma. THAT is what I fight - the mirage that faith in dogma is rational. Without dogma, you couldn't HAVE religious extremism, and without religious esxtremism, you can't have good people doing evil things. The people who flew the planes on 9-11 were god-fearing, loving sons, fathers and brothers, who believed what they were told in the absence of evidence. They were happy and comforted by their faith, and looking forward to their virgins in the next life. No, that was not a victimless crime. Where do you live that you think you have never been personally hurt by dogmatic belief? 9-11 didn't hurt you? The Holocaust didn't hurt you? None of the planes being blown up or assassinations or the North ireland bombs have affected you in any negative way? Don't you know any women terrified of getting pregnant since they could never have an abortion? Know any men terrified of getting someone pregnant since they (the someones) could never have an abortion? Know anybody killed by a drunk driving teenager, since puritanical laws prevent the moderate daily drinking with meals that is known to be healthy and does not promote the binge drinking that gets you drunk in the first place? Again, what planet do you think you are living on? How can you just ignore all the harm and say well, it isn't touching me? Name me one extremist about anything who wasn't motivated by dogma. One. How can you even get to an extreme of sensible intelligence? What is the extreme of thoughtful inquiry? MAD THINKER! RUN! They might draw a pointed conclusion! And sorry, no, you don't understand how I feel if nobody you loved dearly was ever killed by religious dogmatics. Nor do you understand what I write if you think that I am against religion rather than against the idea that belief without evidence should be as *respected* as rational, thoughtful and intelligent pondering. Especially in the school system. Man, that chaps my ass big time. And I was against dogma long before any of this happened, except the Holocaust. I have never thought it made any sense to pretend that any grownup's belief in the supernatural made enough sense for me not to laugh at it, although for politeness' sake, before all this other nastiness, I was willing not to. Now, I consider it less polite to pretend it's OK than to laugh at the silliness, as it rationally is considered. Luckily, Mom was an atheist who did not consider herself jewish anyway, since her family had been secular, so at least I didn't grow up knowing she was a Holocaust survivor. That only came out when I was about 17. So both the christians who murdered my mom's secular family and the moslems who killed dad were after people of other faiths, and got secular atheists instead. I have many friends of faith who are good and kind and know full well that their faith is faith-based, not rational, and who can't say why they still believe. No problems there. Since they aren't buying into the dogma but instead into the deity, they would be hard to pursuade into terrible actions based on what radicalizers claim the diety wants. Without that rational thought, though, you are wide open to that radicalization. I mean, why not? It's what authority says your deity wants, right? Who are you to argue with that, unless you are allowed to think? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Nov 10 - 11:24 PM Thank you, Mrzzy. I now understand exactly why you have such a personal hostility toward religion. The only observation I'd make about it is this: The problem in the world that has afflicted you, your family, your cultural community, and your nation is not religion, per se....it's extremism. When people take either religion or any form of politics to extremes, they become dangerous. I've known so many good, kind, and harmless religious people in my life that I cannot judge people on the basis of religion, any more than I would judge them on the basis of national identity or gender. It is extremists of all types who commit the violent acts and engage in the harmful activities you allude to...usually for a political cause, sometimes for a political AND religious cause. Some extremists are religious, some are atheists, some are agnostics, some are communists, some are fascists, some are nihilists. The problem is not what they have faith in, the problem is that they go to a ridiculous extreme and then use their faith to justify extreme and violent behaviour. However, your own personal history has shaped your reactions to religious things, so I don't expect you to alter your viewpoint. I have never been personally hurt by any religious people in my entire life...nor had religion forced down my throat by anyone, was never made to go to church by anyone, and that's why I don't join you in your holy crusade against religion, but I will join you in opposing ANY form of extremism...religious or otherwise. And, YES, I do understand how you feel and why you feel that way now that you have explained that stuff in your last 2 posts. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:56 PM Oh, yeah, and I didn't even COUNT 9-11, which sent my surviving family into post-traumatic shock, nearly caused one of my sisters to commit suicide, put me back into the depression I'd barely been climbing out of from Daddy's death, and killed three of my colleagues who were on one of the planes. Not to mention what it did to thousands and thousands of other families. No, religion is nice and fluffy and comforting, so it's ok, none of that counts, if you're wise, yeah, right. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Mrrzy Date: 08 Nov 10 - 10:47 PM Wisdom does not seek compromise with foolishness. Wisdom seeks knowledge and how to use it; compromising with the dogma-ridden is hardly wise. How many ways do they hurt me? Well, let's see, where to start. The chistians who murdered my maternal family for being jewish hurt me, by making my mom the way she is and by stealing my grandparents, cousins, uncles and aunts from me. The moslems who murdered my father for being, as they thought, christian, even though he was actually a pacifist atheist, hurt me terribly by murdering my father just before my college graduation, and hurt my children and their cousins by stealing their grandfather from them. The christians who put deity into my children's history books -but only for christianity, not islam or judaism, to boot! - as if the Bible were an historical text are hurting my children and all the kids in the class by not teaching them history, and calling their dogma history when it isn't. Having my President say that atheists certainly can't be patriots, and he isnt' even sure they can be citizens, hurts me. Having christians (I never get this from jews or moslems or any other religions, for that matter) look down on me for not believing their particular fairy tales and Just So stories now that I'm a grownup hurt me. Every time I hear someone deny evolution, I and my children are hurt, by the abject ignorance displayed both by that position and by its being considered reasonable by other adults. Having evolution denial being brought into actual science and history classes hurts everybody, especially the children, in my society. We Must Stop Putting Up With This CRAP. Really. I just don't see how all the intelligent people in this forum can keep defending this kind of willful ignorance being imposed on children! And you say it's WISE to just say OK, freedom of religion is more important than reality? What planet are you ON? It's the harm, people, it's the harm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And yes, I am having a personally bad day, but still. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:07 PM "But Ed, religion deals in certainties all the time" Maybe so. But, I don't follow, or have much time for any religion. They may be "all right for some, but not all right for me" Others may be a better source of inspiration on that one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Nov 10 - 09:01 PM But Ed, religion deals in certainties all the time. Our Father who art in heaven...yeah? Prove it, mate! "There's probably no God..." (said the bus ad) - now you can't really ask anyone to prove that, can you? Atheists who deal in certainties are not my kind of atheists. They don't half muck up the argument. You can't prove there's no God any more than you can prove there is a God. Atheists are occasionally tempted to rattle on about proof and express themselves in certainties by believers who like to pounce on the non-certainties and say, well, you can't really be an atheist then, can you - you must be an agnostic! They don't know what they're talking about, of course. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:49 PM I think your time would be much better spent going out and showing your love for your neighbours without invoking God than arguing with people who are ready for your arguments." You know that there are other things in that post that directly applied. The clip is hardly in context. If that is the way you read it, you have little idea what I said. anyway, Above are two suggested ways of spending time. One of them is trying to argue people into Atheism. The other is trying to bring them into that school of thought with compassion and a good example. I am suggesting that the latter is more effective. Though I will grant that it is not the best way to sell books and get on TV. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Jack the Sailor Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:42 PM I just don't see Little Hawk's arguing about the arguing, or meta arguing if you will, serving any purpose other than making him look smug. No one is forcing him to read any of this. If he thinks that someone is breaking the rules of the forum, he should point that out otherwise what he is doing is just irritating and rude. He should either join the conversation or find something else to do. Are we consuming electrons that he has a better use for? I think not. Little Hawk, or anyone else who doesn't like the conversation is free to sod off. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 08 Nov 10 - 08:31 PM "The moral is that it's better not to affirm, that is, deal in certainties" Whew, that's a personal relief...'cause I don't recall experiencing certainties on many aspects of life....except that I would certainly sacrifice my life for my immediate family....as most here would also do. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:59 PM "The burden of proof is on those who are believers" Oops, off goes the proof buzzer again:) That Latin one was better: "The proof lies upon he who affirms..." The moral is that it's better not to affirm, that is, deal in certainties. It's a sin serially committed by religion but never by any atheist worth his or her salt. If you claim certainty, that is, if you affirm, you leave yourself open, justifiably, to being asked for proof. If you merely declare faith (in public), you'll simply be asked for evidence, not proof. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:46 PM "All I see most of the time here on this forum is very defensive egos engaging in cleverness. I see little goodwill, little attempt to understand what someone else is saying, little desire for finding things in common with others, little friendliness, little constructive comment....but instead a ravening thirst for some petty verbal victory over the other person" Right on LH. You normally have an eye to see through the BS. I would expect that a purpose could be to learn from others through reasonable debate. However, those interested in that have mostly left the thread awhile back...mostly to those who wish to win an argument on a position they already have firm opinions and others who innocently stumbled by, and are seen as fresh fodder to prove a point. And there are those who either don't get it, or actually enjoy the abuse :). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Ed T Date: 08 Nov 10 - 07:24 PM "The burden of proof is on those who are believers" Oops, off goes the proof buzzer again:) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:53 PM i agree that much that was once explained only by reference to deity is now understood in science,the beginning though is not so explained.everything that has a beginning must have a sufficient cause.if that cause is natural,it too would require sufficient cause.therefore that cause must be supernatural/spiritual. Terrible logic. Utter non sequitur. You try to explain something that is (admittedly) difficult to explain by inventing something that is itself impossible to explain, and, worse, for which you have no evidence. Of all the answers you could come up with for your conjecture, you pick what is by far the most improbable. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Steve Shaw Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:46 PM Why indeed? I don't. You don't either. But so what? Why worry about other people who do...if it makes them feel happy and they aren't hurting anyone? Surely it's their business, isn't it? Who is hurting you, Mrzzy? Or who did? And when? And why this continual reactiveness against other people's spiritual beliefs on your part? What business is it of yours what they believe or do not believe? Is it their problem or is it yours that you react to their belief? Well yes, all this is fine, except for one teensy detail. Believers, or at least their organisations, do sort of insist on passing it on. To their kids, at home, in schools and at church. Nobody, but nobody, is going to complain about someone else's private God notion, as long as that is what it is - private. Of course, that will never happen. Organised religion knows that it can't afford to wait until children are mature, thinking adults before forcing the message on them. It has to indulge in this immoral game of giving myths-as-truth to children in order to survive at all. And yes, I know there is a difference between the ordinary believer-in-the-street and big religion. But the former, en masse, connive in the latter (with a few honourable exceptions) like mad. Atheists are not interested in attacking people's individual, private convictions (though, of course, they're fair game if they stick their heads above the parapet on discussion threads), but they do see the tremendous damage that religion can do and has done. That's definitely worth a bit of a barney I reckon. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: The God Delusion 2010 From: Little Hawk Date: 08 Nov 10 - 06:16 PM Mrzzy - "Are you saying that unnatural and supernatural are equivalent?" No. I'm not. I'm saying that nothing is supernatural, everything is natural, but if people don't understand some natural (or technical) process or device they might think of it as "supernatural" or "magical"....simply because they don't understand it. "There are unnatural things that exist, we humans make them every day, don't we?" You could say that, I suppose, but that has nothing to do with the point I was making. Whether something is "unnatural" or not in that sense is a matter of opinion. If it exists, it is occuring and manifesting in the natural world. Is a squirrel's nest unnatural? Is a glass bottle unnatural? Is an A-bomb unnatural? Is a shoe unnatural? That all depends on your perspective, and it's a matter of opinion as to whether any manufactured thing is natural or unnatural, but in any case it has absolutely nothing to do with the point I was making. Mrzzy...to be clever is not to be wise. This forum is full of people who pride themselves on their cleverness as they can come up with infinite petty arguments and nitpicking of anything anyone else says, but that is not wisdom. Wisdom seeks accord. Wisdom seeks common ground. Cleverness seeks petty victories over perceived opponents. All I see most of the time here on this forum is very defensive egos engaging in cleverness. I see little goodwill, little attempt to understand what someone else is saying, little desire for finding things in common with others, little friendliness, little constructive comment....but instead a ravening thirst for some petty verbal victory over the other person. It doesn't help anyone. It's also what's poisoning the political dialogue in our societies. And it is the very heart and soul of what is negative and unhelpful about most of what has been posted on this thread, most of the other religious threads, and most (if not all) of the political threads. Anyway...moving on to what else you said: "why cling to the supernatural to explain anything at all?" Why indeed? I don't. You don't either. But so what? Why worry about other people who do...if it makes them feel happy and they aren't hurting anyone? Surely it's their business, isn't it? Who is hurting you, Mrzzy? Or who did? And when? And why this continual reactiveness against other people's spiritual beliefs on your part? What business is it of yours what they believe or do not believe? Is it their problem or is it yours that you react to their belief? |
