May I continue the debate?

[chakka35]

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.

[Ankou]

i agree beso, but it works both ways dusnit.

i am a non believer but my sentiment lies in agreement with luna-sea "Personally I couldn't careless who believes what as long as they are happy and it doesn't bring harm to others". i am content to challenge both ways and accept it back.

[beso]

I too want people to be happy but if in they being happy they promote values that are detrimental to the growth of humanity then we as a society should have the right to speak against the promotion of those values.

The Abrahamists are all eagerly awaiting the destruction of the earth when they and all those who believe will be chosen as God's special people in a place where everything is perfect. Last time Abraham's god promised this the Hebrews massacred hundreds of thousands of people with the goal of implementing God's Kingdom. They unashamedly wanted a place where everyone belief are exactly the same. This was also the driving force behind Idol-ph Hitler's genodides. With no diversity there will be no conflict. At best it is naive.

As the degradation of the planet through indulgence and greed takes hold Abraham's Minions will see it as their cue to follow the example of Joshua and lead their peole to glorious supremacy and fulfil the prophecies of their ancient prophets. Cure this primitive thought sytem embodied in the Abrahamic religions and many of the world's intractible problems become approachable.

Far from doing no harm, the beliefs of the religionists have repeatedly entrapped our societies in primitive values, many which represent the worst in the behaviour of most powerful people. Most of the news is generated by religous conflict. We have the right to suggest religion is the problem, particularly when the assertion can be backed up with unambiguous examples taken directly from the Holy Texts.

I have had quite enough of socially destructive religious values and their amoral philosophies. Expect more criticism and don't try to pretend I am racist. This is all about philosopy and nothing to do with prejudice.

[Ankou]

"if in they being happy they promote values that are detrimental to the growth of humanity" i haven't sen any of that evidenced here on ab ?

"all eagerly awaiting the destruction of the earth when they and all those who believe will be chosen as God's special people in a place where everything is perfect." - nothing wrong with believeing that, hardly brings any inconvenience or concern to me

"Far from doing no harm, the beliefs of the religionists have repeatedly entrapped our societies in primitive values, many which represent the worst in the behaviour of most powerful people" - true, but such people would use any means to control the masses (religion, taxes, poverty, famine, oppression etc) to get the system or ideology they are aiming to achieve. take religion out and it'll be somehtig else.

"Expect more criticism and don't try to pretend I am racist. This is all about philosopy and nothing to do with prejudice." - never even considered race as an issue and wouldn't dream of strifling constructive debate, or as you wish to put it: criticism.

glad we agree

[beso]

"if in they being happy they promote values that are detrimental to the growth of humanity" i haven't sen any of that evidenced here on ab ?

Yes but right there in balck and white in the Bible is the glorification of an atrocity. Is this really what you want your children to learn about life?

"all eagerly awaiting the destruction of the earth when they and all those who believe will be chosen as God's special people in a place where everything is perfect." - nothing wrong with believeing that, hardly brings any inconvenience or concern to me

So you are happy to be destroyed or are you just confident to be on the winning side. Tough luck if the Jehova's are right. Only room for 144,000. Sorry but your apathy is disappointing.

"Far from doing no harm, the beliefs of the religionists have repeatedly entrapped our societies in primitive values, many which represent the worst in the behaviour of most powerful people" - true, but such people would use any means to control the masses (religion, taxes, poverty, famine, oppression etc) to get the system or ideology they are aiming to achieve. take religion out and it'll be somehtig else.

The basic problem in religion is the concept of the wize person. Religion is all about personality cults. Modern sensibilities are based on critique of the idea itself. This is how it need to be to make the best of our best ideas. Not by being stuck in a bronze age philosophy.

[Ankou]

it hasn't postes, i presume ots too long or somthing
part 1

"Yes but right there in balck and white in the Bible is the glorification of an atrocity. Is this really what you want your children to learn about life?" - no, i have learnt this later in life and formed my own opinion. i would expect much the same for my own children. similarly in a visit to any tomb or temple in egypt and within the annuls of british or other ancient history one can see such glorification of atrocities. it hapens and has happened, with religious intent ad without.

"So you are happy to be destroyed or are you just confident to be on the winning side. Tough luck if the Jehova's are right. Only room for 144,000. Sorry but your apathy is disappointing" - by being 'detroyed' you mean dieing ? well that just happens its a fact of life. i have no philosophy or belief in any afterlife and just believe we return to nothingness. if i don;t believe in a god, then i fail to see wy i should belve in any eternal damnation made up by some bloke some years ago as a way of controlling living people. my apathy disappoints you ? thas quite bizarre. if i simply don;t believe in it, then why should i froth at the mouth about it ? to me its just a nonsense and that is what i would conclude to anyone who tried to tell me otherwise.

[Ankou]

part 2

"The basic problem in religion is the concept of the wize person. Religion is all about personality cults." - true, but it is the same for any cultiral, historical or religious ideology. take these people in news who are undeniably in favour of the bnp and white anglo saxon heritage, along with the 'english' richard the lion heart. of course we all know that is delusion because richard was french, the anglo saxons were at best celts and britons, with a bit of irish, germanic, danish, swedish, norse, and french thrown into the mix. modern england follows the personality cult of what is known as "celebrity". if course this is twaddle, but arguing about it and criticising it won't change the world.

ciao

[123everton]

We are inundated with scientific projections of ever increasing doom, unless we conform to their model.
It is not for you or I to decide or discern the the attitudes and values that parents instil in their offspring, provided they are not harming others, who cares?
If there's only room for 144,000 people in heaven then when you die you go in the ground, but then you believe that anyway.
So where's the beef?

[Ankou]

morrisons ?

[Seadragon]

I apologise if I'm being over the top but I've been meaning to say this for some time. I am cheesed off with the way a debate is conducted on this site. Beso you elegantly talk in your 10.06? post of respecting others beliefs and the right to voice criticism and in particular that 'Religion debate must maintain focus on the philosophy and not villify the people...there is no disrespect in questioning someone's values...'
Then what the hell is 'sorry but your apathy is disappointing.'? To take an example of this thread. I am fed up with this - we are debating, you can voice your opinion crap'
Naomi - I like you as I like everybody else on this site but I read that thread about the theorist interpretation was it? I will find it for you if you want me to. However that debate with Mallam was and totally disrespectful. I'm sorry to say this but firstly - why should someone be put in a position to give their credentials in order to back up their opinion? That is just not on. Their opinion is as valid as anyone else's without having to state their experience the force of the opinion should speak for itself. Secondly Mallam was forced to say that she/he is an external examiner of religious studies and yet you implied and if not said at one point that he/she was good at 'googling.' How much more disrespectful can you get? Where has Mallam been since? I would like to know...........continuing.......

[Seadragon]

Everton or Jake or someone mentioned 'Practice what you preach' at one point and those words were in my head before I read them and I totally agree with that statement. It doesn't happen on here.
Returning to you Beso..'I implore you...cast off...' (sorry to be repetitive as I have highlighted this before) but you are not respecting others beliefs. Instead you are forcing your opinion on others. One atheist poster calls believers 'deluded'. You can have your opinion/views, that is welcome but could we ease of the derogatory comments? Can we not get personal please?

Sorry Beso you said somewhere that you have been called 'anti-semantic' - If you say you are not then I accept that you are not but some of your posts don't read as much. I am probably not as clean either, I hold my hands up to that but can we all from here on conduct debates without the personal, derogatory criticism? Why the hell should anyone really be subjected to personal criticism from anonymous people??

You guys - Beso, Naomi and the rest make some really good points, your posts are intellectual, interesting and thought-provoking but this site will end up with just the select few debating amongst themselves if you guys are not going to start practicising what you preach.

Ankou - Totally agree with you - if not religion then something else....It is man's nature.

[beso]

SeaDragon does not read my point carefully enough. I said it was important that people have the right to believe what they want. I did not say we must respct those beliefs by not criticising them. This is the same mistake we make as a society by giving people the right to promote their religious beliefs without criticism.

" if not religion then something else....It is man's nature."

This in itself stems from the religious belif that we are all born bad. To adopt this belief is to secumbs to the idea that the human condition cannot change. The behaviour of a society is a reflection of its belifs. Much of what is bad about human behaviour is validated by the beliefs promoted in the Holy texts. Our actions on the large scale strongly reflect the beliefs promoted in the Bible. I propose that by unveiling true nature of religion we can change what some like to call human nature.

"I am disappointed" is an "I" statement. That is how I feel because apathy stands of the side of the dominant paradigm. Many bad things have happened because good people said nothing. To be disappointed is not villifing anyone.

Ankou was happy to be taught religion as a child and make up their own mind later. Fortunately that mind was not so indoctrinated by religion that it was ultimately able to reject it. I have no doubt you also grew up with non-religions influences in your life or you would have not had the capability to reject the doctrine.

[beso]

All opinion is not equally valid. The right to express opinion is valid. The right to not have those beliefs set beyond criticism is not valid. This has been traditionally afforded to religion since their oligarchy lost the capability of enforcing compliance. It is not justified. Nobody should be able to promote a philosophy and expect a free run.

Atheists have begun to openly criticise religion and there has been a reaction not only from hard core religionists but also those who have strong beliefs in the rights of religion to not be criticised. However I would rather see that kind reaction from SeaDragon than apathy. The right to criticise religion is the core of the religion debate. I see a lot of resistance still.

[KARL]

My son had the usual (multi/philosophical) religious classes at primary school but never went to church or Sunday school. At home, religion was never discussed although it was referred to in passing as a result of news, general conversation, etc. I was brought up in a Christian context, my wife much more so (with church, Sunday school, etc.). Both my wife and I were Christened, whereas neither of our sons was. At about the age of 10 our son startled us by announcing that there is no god, that religion is bunkum and that he is an atheist. Even that last word surprised us as we were unaware it existed in his everyday vocabulary. I would not refer to myself as an atheist, but definitely an agnostic. I entered into a discussion with the boy and suggested perhaps what was in his mind was agnosticism (I feel neither for or against is proven). No, he said, he had said and meant atheism and he remains as adamant today, aged 22.

I am absolutely certain he was not led to this conclusion by anyone here in his childhood home nor by any of his friends, none of whom would even now dwell on such esoteric concepts, never mind as children. He had never been in contact with people who would discuss religion - except classes at school and a minister and others who visited as part of those classes. This was entirely his own conclusion. Extraordinary ? Very possibly. Was he ahead of his peers ? I would say so. Was that because he is bright ? Ditto, very.

[naomi24]

Seadragon, I've no idea what prompted this tirade, but, yes, with apologies to Chakka for interrupting his thread, let's go with your theme and talk about Mallam. I remember him well. He was the man who didn't answer the question, but insisted that the thesis it was based on, which he'd never read, was completely and utterly wrong, and that its author, although he couldn't be bothered (his words) to find out who she was, was nevertheless an 'upstart'. (Incidentally, she isn't). He was the man who far from being 'forced' to give his credentials, voluntarily (dare I say eagerly?) offered them at least twice - and clearly even managed to impress one or two - and he was the man who took great delight in attempting to undermine the intellect of the author of the question, and found it all 'such fun' (his words again). He was the man who arrogantly, and quite mistakenly, told me I didn't understand the word 'thesis', that I ought to look it up, and that he felt he should make it a 'bit simpler' for me - and he was the man who totally destroyed what began as a good subject for debate. And my crime (or perhaps I should say 'sin') was to suspect he googled? Gosh! I'm truly mortified! Do you reckon a few Hail Marys would get me off the hook?

Cont....

[naomi24]

....Cont

It matters not to me whether you like me or not, Seadragon, or whether you think my posts are intellectual, interesting and thought-provoking, or otherwise, so please don't bother to patronise me. My mother always told me 'you're judged by the company you keep', and it would serve you well to remember that. The person you're aiming your posts at is not the only one reading them, and the same applies to the posts of the people you support. Additionally, it's important to get your facts straight before embarking on a negative critique of someone else, because insults and inaccurate accusations can always be traced and, unless you do your homework, there's every likelihood you will be proven wrong.

As far as being disrespectful is concerned, your frequent apologies are patently meaningless, because the only rudeness I can see on this thread has come from your arrogance in assuming that you are somehow qualified to dictate the way in which others should conduct their debate. You ask Beso 'Why the hell should anyone really be subjected to personal criticism from anonymous people?' Perhaps, since you are clearly so eager to criticise, you should remove the plank from your own eye, take your own advice to practise what you preach, and answer your own question.

And for your information, this site has ended up with just the select few debating amongst themselves - but that isn't due to anything the long-term users have done, so perhaps that's something else you might like to think about before you decide to sermonize again.

Now, if you've finished throwing your rubber bricks, hopefully we can stop with this nonsense for good, and perhaps you will do Chakka the courtesy of allowing anyone who wants to join in the original debate to concentrate on the subject in hand.

[naomi24]

Karl, that reminds me of Christopher Hitchins. He came to a similar conclusion at an early age - with no prompting from anyone. I would say that your son was very definitely ahead of his peers - and no doubt extremely bright. For a ten year old to think so seriously about the subject is, indeed, extraordinary.

[Seadragon]

Hi, abit tied up but I will respond some point later.

[craft1948]

It's livelier than CB in here.........fascinating......

[chakka35]

I never cease to be fascinated by the way a simple seed sown on this site can give rise to such a huge tree of fascinating irrelevancies. Next time I'll ask about how to plant dahlias and see where that leads. All great fun.

naomi, by gosh, you're on form! Glad I'm not in the opposite camp. Please tell me where I can find this Mallam reference so that I can understand the clash with Seadragon.

Anyway, I hope 123everton (who must be cheering at the total inadequacy of my team on the other side of Stanley Park) has seen the point I made that started all this.

Carry on, folks.

[naomi24]

Chakka, Thank you for the compliment. Sensible debate seems to be becoming a thing of the past here with threads constantly being sabotaged by irrelevant nonsense.

Here you are:

http://www.theanswerb...y/Question818063.html