Do Police In Belfast Carry Guns As...
Society & Culture1 min 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.
And I'm not suggesting religion should be free to spout rubbish while atheists have to sit in respectful silence.
But sometimes you wonder if people are standing up for reason, or enjoying the intellectual masturbation of parading their cleverness. It's like shooting fish in a barrel after all - especially on this site.
But sometimes you wonder if people are standing up for reason, or enjoying the intellectual masturbation of parading their cleverness. It's like shooting fish in a barrel after all - especially on this site.
jno, when I started typing this, the most recent posts weren't there, and I began by thanking you for bringing this thread back on course. However, it seems that wasn't your intention, so I've deleted that bit. As for Mallam, why raise it indeed? However, since it seems the subject appears to be tediously ongoing, for the record, no one has accused him of personal wickedness, and he did ruin the argument because in his efforts to disparage not only a theory that he had not investigated, but the author of question too, he made no attempt whatsoever to answer the question. You, yourself, admitted that you didn't know what the thesis contained, and as I said at the end of that thread, the question would have remained the same regardless of the link given. Now, please, let us put an end to this nonsense and get back to the matter in hand.
cont .......
cont .......
.......cont
To continue. jno, I think you're right. Religion did come from the reasoning and thinking of man, but what I have to consider is the evidence that first man based his opinion on. I don't believe the Gods were a figment of man's imagination. I think early peoples saw and recorded events they were incapable of explaining and so assumed they were witnessing something supernatural. I have to ask who was this God who walked in the Garden of Eden in search of Adam? My powers of reasoning tell me that if he needed to search, and call Adam's name, he couldn't have been all knowing. Additionally, who were the 'sons of God' who mated with the daughters of men? Jesus' elder brothers? No, they couldn't have been, because Jesus was reputed to have been God's only begotten son. And why did the Israelites have to mark their doors with blood before God arrived to slaughter all the first born? Didn't God know where they lived? So much conflicting information, and so many questions that for me, personally, need answers. There has to be a logical explanation, but religion doesn't provide it. There have been people living in the jungles of the Amazon in recent times who through their powers of reasoning came to the conclusion that aircraft were great silver birds, and that their crews, with their modern technology, were supernatural beings, or Gods, and I believe that is precisely what happened in the dim and distant past. Of course, religion has moved on since then, and now encompasses even more of man's inaccurate assumptions. As I said earlier, I don't deny that man possesses an innate spirituality, or that there is a possibility that a super-being exists, but in my opinion that being cannot possibly be the God of the Bible/Koran.
To continue. jno, I think you're right. Religion did come from the reasoning and thinking of man, but what I have to consider is the evidence that first man based his opinion on. I don't believe the Gods were a figment of man's imagination. I think early peoples saw and recorded events they were incapable of explaining and so assumed they were witnessing something supernatural. I have to ask who was this God who walked in the Garden of Eden in search of Adam? My powers of reasoning tell me that if he needed to search, and call Adam's name, he couldn't have been all knowing. Additionally, who were the 'sons of God' who mated with the daughters of men? Jesus' elder brothers? No, they couldn't have been, because Jesus was reputed to have been God's only begotten son. And why did the Israelites have to mark their doors with blood before God arrived to slaughter all the first born? Didn't God know where they lived? So much conflicting information, and so many questions that for me, personally, need answers. There has to be a logical explanation, but religion doesn't provide it. There have been people living in the jungles of the Amazon in recent times who through their powers of reasoning came to the conclusion that aircraft were great silver birds, and that their crews, with their modern technology, were supernatural beings, or Gods, and I believe that is precisely what happened in the dim and distant past. Of course, religion has moved on since then, and now encompasses even more of man's inaccurate assumptions. As I said earlier, I don't deny that man possesses an innate spirituality, or that there is a possibility that a super-being exists, but in my opinion that being cannot possibly be the God of the Bible/Koran.
Ankou - I did say once I wasn't all that good!
What has become a revelation to me in the past few days is how the internet as in global access, can have such an effect on people's views. From the t.v prog I stated above even in strict countries kids had internet/facebook access. Although this can be heavily monitored as the mother in Lebanon was monitering her kids there is a fear that information is readily and freely available at the touch of a button. It's not like sneaking into a library for material. I think its that exposure that in the future will have an effect upon the younger generation of strict Religionists (to use Jno's word) that may have the biggest impact on religion and thought.
But what worries me is that at least people can derive some moralistic values from religion and are not likely to stray. I considered myself really moralistic, I have been in the past but now my values are changing and my moral structure is disintegrating and I start taking responsibility for my own actions. I shocked a friend the other day when we talking about 'one of the things you would like to do before you die stuff.' I told him that I want to commit an armed robbery, later on in life where it doesn't impact on my work and life that much. Theft and burglary is ok but armed robbery is beginning to appeal to me. Don't want to hurt anyone though just frighten them. Now if I strongly believed in consequences I shouldn't have those thoughts?
What has become a revelation to me in the past few days is how the internet as in global access, can have such an effect on people's views. From the t.v prog I stated above even in strict countries kids had internet/facebook access. Although this can be heavily monitored as the mother in Lebanon was monitering her kids there is a fear that information is readily and freely available at the touch of a button. It's not like sneaking into a library for material. I think its that exposure that in the future will have an effect upon the younger generation of strict Religionists (to use Jno's word) that may have the biggest impact on religion and thought.
But what worries me is that at least people can derive some moralistic values from religion and are not likely to stray. I considered myself really moralistic, I have been in the past but now my values are changing and my moral structure is disintegrating and I start taking responsibility for my own actions. I shocked a friend the other day when we talking about 'one of the things you would like to do before you die stuff.' I told him that I want to commit an armed robbery, later on in life where it doesn't impact on my work and life that much. Theft and burglary is ok but armed robbery is beginning to appeal to me. Don't want to hurt anyone though just frighten them. Now if I strongly believed in consequences I shouldn't have those thoughts?
Beso, I think you will find that criticism of religion is even more of a taboo in some non-western societies. For example, I have observed that in Muslim countres (i.e. vast majority are Muslims) I have visited, people avoid challenging those who present themselves as devout believers because they accept a taboo on doing just that. This is irrespective of them knowing fine that a challenge would be valid and even is called for. Of course, some of the "devout" can be seen exploiting this reticence in others.
As for turning a debate into a personal battle, it takes both intellect and self discipline to avoid that particular temptation. Some people do not possess the total sum quota of both to achieve that, but that does not mean their opinion is less valid - they may yet learn to conduct themselves more elegantly and therefore they should be encouraged to continue in the discussion. They in turn should learn to welcome what they stand to gain by the process.
Not long ago I was stunned to be angrily told I hated all Americans. This was said by an American who had learned I don't share her religious views nor am I ever likely to (it did not help that I pointed out that assertions she made are nowhere supported in the Bible). I am still coming to terms with that leap in logic, particularly as she was staying with us at our invitation and at that precise moment she was on a trip around Europe at our expense. Religion, deficits in personal strengths.......no wonder some people fly off the handle in anger and despair, but is that ever justified from either side of the divide ?
As for turning a debate into a personal battle, it takes both intellect and self discipline to avoid that particular temptation. Some people do not possess the total sum quota of both to achieve that, but that does not mean their opinion is less valid - they may yet learn to conduct themselves more elegantly and therefore they should be encouraged to continue in the discussion. They in turn should learn to welcome what they stand to gain by the process.
Not long ago I was stunned to be angrily told I hated all Americans. This was said by an American who had learned I don't share her religious views nor am I ever likely to (it did not help that I pointed out that assertions she made are nowhere supported in the Bible). I am still coming to terms with that leap in logic, particularly as she was staying with us at our invitation and at that precise moment she was on a trip around Europe at our expense. Religion, deficits in personal strengths.......no wonder some people fly off the handle in anger and despair, but is that ever justified from either side of the divide ?
As host in this thread, I have a little cleaning-up to do:
everton - If you read the question with which I started all this you'll see that I had been an atheist for decades before I came across Dawkins. Read it again.
jno - Man's 'reasoning and thinking' when he first invented gods is likely to have been very primitive. Gods explained things (volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on) which he couldn't. Gods protected him, he decided, from the horrors of nature and gave him life after death. Some of these primitive ideas survive - for example: because we can't explain the origin of the universe, some people put it down to some creator god or other.
Seadragon - I wasn't suggesting that you are afraid of naomi, merely expressing relief that I was not trying to adhere to your 'arguments' in the face of her logic. (Not that I would, of course.)
There is no evidence that Voltaire ever said that. Evelyn Beatrice Hall mused that his attitude to freedom of speech might have caused him to write that way. But he didn't.
everton - If you read the question with which I started all this you'll see that I had been an atheist for decades before I came across Dawkins. Read it again.
jno - Man's 'reasoning and thinking' when he first invented gods is likely to have been very primitive. Gods explained things (volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes and so on) which he couldn't. Gods protected him, he decided, from the horrors of nature and gave him life after death. Some of these primitive ideas survive - for example: because we can't explain the origin of the universe, some people put it down to some creator god or other.
Seadragon - I wasn't suggesting that you are afraid of naomi, merely expressing relief that I was not trying to adhere to your 'arguments' in the face of her logic. (Not that I would, of course.)
There is no evidence that Voltaire ever said that. Evelyn Beatrice Hall mused that his attitude to freedom of speech might have caused him to write that way. But he didn't.
Naomi raises the inconsistencies which ultimatley group into an incongruency that asks why the all powerful God needed any help at all. Whole cities could collapse and seas part at His will. The first born would mysteriously die in a whim to demonstrate His power. Yet He needs the Hewbrews to implement all those massacres or perfom a bizarre ritual like marching around a city seven times blowing a trumpet. Was He simply in the modd for soome music while he held terrified men women and children in preparation of their demise on the bloodied Holy Hebrew Sword ?
Karl points out the taboo against discussing religion in many countries. In some of the places merely having an opinon is a sin since only the enlightend know the truth. A heresy like promoting another faith is punishible by death. In Elizabethan times a person could be heavily fined for not attending church. Little wonder nobody has said much until now.
Religious freedom is protected by law in many places. It has been considered polite not to criticise or discuss religion and this originates from times where most people were religious and avoided arguments from opposing doctrine which cannot be resolved.
Most theists don't want the debate because they want the simplicity of faith. However since a religious debate is quickly resolved by reading the appropriate passage of the Holy Book they get boring very quickly anyway. The deepest it can get to is "My prophet is more reliable than your prophet. The Bible was particluarly clever in avoidiing confusion by having multiple prophets that frequently offer quite contrary advice.
While a little knowledge of the Bible certainly makes debating theists a fish in a barrel situation it surely should not mean that we just let them continue to dictate the morality of society on the basis of something they read in an old book.
Karl points out the taboo against discussing religion in many countries. In some of the places merely having an opinon is a sin since only the enlightend know the truth. A heresy like promoting another faith is punishible by death. In Elizabethan times a person could be heavily fined for not attending church. Little wonder nobody has said much until now.
Religious freedom is protected by law in many places. It has been considered polite not to criticise or discuss religion and this originates from times where most people were religious and avoided arguments from opposing doctrine which cannot be resolved.
Most theists don't want the debate because they want the simplicity of faith. However since a religious debate is quickly resolved by reading the appropriate passage of the Holy Book they get boring very quickly anyway. The deepest it can get to is "My prophet is more reliable than your prophet. The Bible was particluarly clever in avoidiing confusion by having multiple prophets that frequently offer quite contrary advice.
While a little knowledge of the Bible certainly makes debating theists a fish in a barrel situation it surely should not mean that we just let them continue to dictate the morality of society on the basis of something they read in an old book.
