Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTheism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8788899091 174>
Author
Message
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 21 2010 at 23:59
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



^ I wouldn't be as presumptuous as you and decree a winner here - I'll let the "audience" decide. Please keep in mind though that one of the core principles of science is change (along with the evidence), while one of the core principles of religion is dogma (which stays the same regardless of evidence). Sure, the theory of evolution is as new (in historical terms) for atheists as it is for
religious people. The difference is that it can destroy the foundation of a religion (by being incompatible with its dogmatic teachings), while atheists don't have any problem with it. The point is that atheists are not making any claims that could become problematic with new scientific findings. 
 
I'm not calling a winner, I can't prove religion is the truth in the same way you can't say beyond doubt that religion is false, I'm talking about your method.

You make claims that are false, and that's a fact, for example, you say that only by decree of the 60's we can accept evolution, when as a fact Evolution is at least accepted as a possibility since 1893 (Only 34 years after published).

As a fact Darwin's theories were never banned or prohibited by the only Church I can talk about as you try to imply.

And like this, many of your claims have nothing to do wi6th reality...Not talking about believing in the existence or non existence of God, that's a personal choice.

BTW: I don't see how evolution undermines Christianity, unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible must be understood in a 100% literal way.

Originally posted by Mr Progreak Mr Progreak wrote:

Well, seems you have a lot of confessing to do. But I guess that you're not taking that one seriously, either. Am I really that wrong about Christians "on paper"? I mean, who are you to determine which things you can safely ignore? You need to fight those atheistic (humanistic) tendencies.Wink

 
Again, you choose what to answer and what to ignore, but I will say that I'm not a perfect Catholic, never said I was, but I know my flaws.
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I would rather say "erosion" than "evolution". In any case it's more a form of artificial selection, where scientific advances force the church to little by little adjust their teachings to become more and more transcendental (that's what Dennett is referring to as "murky"), with Deism as the end result. Please, compare the teachings of your Catholic church at the time when it started to today. I'm not talking about 1000+ page doctrines here, I mean the stuff that the actual Catholic must do in order to be able to call him self a good, average Catholic. Will you honestly tell me that in this case the modern version bears any resemblance to the original?

I would say people today is able to understand what has to be understood as an allegory and what has to be understood as a truth, without loosing faith, and Church has to change with times.
 
100 years ago you couldn't talk about the Big Bang, because nobody would have understood you, today Christian scientists in the Vatican Observatory works 24/7 studying the effects of this singularity...Times change. 
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Of course. It's not my choice though, it's because you refuse to let go of your history. That baggage is yours, not mine.
 
As a fact you are the one who refuses to understand we see our history only as history, we are able to change and we proved it, a Pope asked pardon for the acts of the Church admitting we also make mistakes, but you criticize us if we don't change and even more if we change.

Probably the worst threat for an atheist who wants to spread his ideas, is a church that evolves and changes, but that is happening and will continue happening.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I would like for humanity to evolve beyond the need for religion. Some of us already have, so I'm sure that it's not a genetic thing. I simply think that our brains are not functioning completely logical all the time (to put it euphemistically), and while mechanisms like confirmation bias and the various ways of coping with cognitive dissonance certainly were assets in our evolution, they also make us vulnerable to not only acquire false beliefs, but also to having great difficulties to identifying and getting rid of them - the longer we carry them and the more we invest in them, the more difficult it is.
 
So....You say Attheists are more evolved than religious people?...And also that your brains function better?
 
Wow...And you called me presumptuous some lines above? Confused

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Maybe at some point you'll be able to let go of the bronze age baggage
 
 
We have already left the baggage behind, from the moment we accepted that some books of that era are only allegories, you're the one not ready to accept we did so, because it would hurt your crusade against religion..
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

... you're making this entire argument much more complicated than it could be. I simply won't accept any belief unless someone demonstrates to me that there are good reasons for holding it. That includes ancient myths like the stories of the old testament as much as the stuff that your particular religion added, like the wafer transformations and modern day miracles. If you don't like the label "atheist", simply call me a skeptic.
 
Mike, the difference between you and me, is that I don't care if you believe, accept or like my beliefs, I don't think that the world needs to be exclusively formed by religious people or that we should evolve to a point where everybody is a Christian...You on the other hand have expressed repeatedly that you wish religion wouldn't exist.

So, if you believe or not..is not my problem, that's your personal call, and should be respected, even if you don't respect (you have said this repeatedly) our beliefs.

Iván

PS: Not getting angry, by the contrary.

 
            
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 03:20
Originally posted by Ivan_Melgar_M Ivan_Melgar_M wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



^ I wouldn't be as presumptuous as you and decree a winner here - I'll let the "audience" decide. Please keep in mind though that one of the core principles of science is change (along with the evidence), while one of the core principles of religion is dogma (which stays the same regardless of evidence). Sure, the theory of evolution is as new (in historical terms) for atheists as it is for
religious people. The difference is that it can destroy the foundation of a religion (by being incompatible with its dogmatic teachings), while atheists don't have any problem with it. The point is that atheists are not making any claims that could become problematic with new scientific findings. 
 
I'm not calling a winner, I can't prove religion is the truth in the same way you can't say beyond doubt that religion is false, I'm talking about your method.

You make claims that are false, and that's a fact, for example, you say that only by decree of the 60's we can accept evolution, when as a fact Evolution is at least accepted as a possibility since 1893 (Only 34 years after published).

As a fact Darwin's theories were never banned or prohibited by the only Church I can talk about as you try to imply.

And like this, many of your claims have nothing to do wi6th reality...Not talking about believing in the existence or non existence of God, that's a personal choice.

Are you telling me that in 1893 every Catholic accepted Evolution? Come on. I'm actually sure that even today many Catholics don't accept Evolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

It's one thing to make public statements about "embracing science", "being open-minded" or announcing/decreeing that "science and religion are fully compatible", and an entirely other thing to actually demonstrate that any of that is actually the case. As seen in this article, Ratzinger is far from actually embracing the theory of evolution in all it entails.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


BTW: I don't see how evolution undermines Christianity, unless you are a fundamentalist who believes that the Bible must be understood in a 100% literal way.



We've been over this a hundred times (and feel free to go back and count and then accuse me of making another false claim Wink). The core principles of Christianity rely on a literal understanding of the Bible. It's because a literal understanding of the Bible is today an absolutely laughable and completely indefensible position that theologians have now modified these principles to such an extent that on one hand they again seem to be compatible with scientific facts, but on the other hand modern Christianity has little to do with the actual thing. And don't you think that Christianity is closely related to Jesus? If so, isn't it relevant what early Christianity taught? If he really was/is God and had such an important role in mankind, how could he/they/it be so incompetent as to allow the supposedly divinely inspired authors of the Bible to get it all wrong, and then watch people basing their live on these wrong ideas for thousand(s) of years?

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Originally posted by Mr Progreak Mr Progreak wrote:

Well, seems you have a lot of confessing to do. But I guess that you're not taking that one seriously, either. Am I really that wrong about Christians "on paper"? I mean, who are you to determine which things you can safely ignore? You need to fight those atheistic (humanistic) tendencies.Wink

 
Again, you choose what to answer and what to ignore, but I will say that I'm not a perfect Catholic, never said I was, but I know my flaws.


As a Christian you can't know your flaws - you are not capable of making moral decisions that overrule God's decisions. It is not your place to decide that some of his rules are important, and others aren't. Essentially, you're a sinner. Which is the purpose of religion and especially Catholicism ... it's all designed to make you feel guilty even if you're doing "the right thing".

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I would rather say "erosion" than "evolution". In any case it's more a form of artificial selection, where scientific advances force the church to little by little adjust their teachings to become more and more transcendental (that's what Dennett is referring to as "murky"), with Deism as the end result. Please, compare the teachings of your Catholic church at the time when it started to today. I'm not talking about 1000+ page doctrines here, I mean the stuff that the actual Catholic must do in order to be able to call him self a good, average Catholic. Will you honestly tell me that in this case the modern version bears any resemblance to the original?

I would say people today is able to understand what has to be understood as an allegory and what has to be understood as a truth, without loosing faith, and Church has to change with times.
 


Why is "today" the right time? You have been wrong for thousands of years, what makes you so sure that you have it right today? Maybe you still have it wrong and it will be another 500 years until you have it right.

Atheists have none of these problems because they don't rely on one fixed collection of ancient books. In 500 years atheists will still be around and evaluating observations of the real world, while Christians will probably be still around attempting to make excuses for why their holy book conflicts with these observations.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


100 years ago you couldn't talk about the Big Bang, because nobody would have understood you, today Christian scientists in the Vatican Observatory works 24/7 studying the effects of this singularity...Times change. 
 
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



Of course. It's not my choice though, it's because you refuse to let go of your history. That baggage is yours, not mine.
 
As a fact you are the one who refuses to understand we see our history only as history, we are able to change and we proved it, a Pope asked pardon for the acts of the Church admitting we also make mistakes, but you criticize us if we don't change and even more if we change.

You change, but you don't change. You change your behavior, but you still claim that your religion is right and has been right from the beginning. By this I don't mean that you - as a person - agree with everything the Catholic church has ever done. But if you're a Catholic, you believe not only that there is a God, but also that the core teachings of the Catholic church are true - and that this God wants people to be baptized, receive communion, confess their sins, priests and nuns not to have sex, people not to have sex before marriage etc.. Most of these rules follow from a literal understanding of the Bible. This literal understanding has been proven wrong in most cases. Yet you still go on and passionately defend Catholicism. It simply makes no sense to me how you can be a modern, enlightened human being on one hand and a devout Catholic on the other hand.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Probably the worst threat for an atheist who wants to spread his ideas, is a church that evolves and changes, but that is happening and will continue happening.



In a way it's like a mutating virus, and of course that's a "threat" to doctors who attempt to fight it. But on the other hand, your evolution usually means that your position gets weaker (religion retreats as science advances), so it's not so bad after all.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:



Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I would like for humanity to evolve beyond the need for religion. Some of us already have, so I'm sure that it's not a genetic thing. I simply think that our brains are not functioning completely logical all the time (to put it euphemistically), and while mechanisms like confirmation bias and the various ways of coping with cognitive dissonance certainly were assets in our evolution, they also make us vulnerable to not only acquire false beliefs, but also to having great difficulties to identifying and getting rid of them - the longer we carry them and the more we invest in them, the more difficult it is.
 
So....You say Attheists are more evolved than religious people?...And also that your brains function better?
 
Wow...And you called me presumptuous some lines above? Confused


That's not what I said - you may want to read it again.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:




Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Maybe at some point you'll be able to let go of the bronze age baggage
 
 
We have already left the baggage behind, from the moment we accepted that some books of that era are only allegories, you're the one not ready to accept we did so, because it would hurt your crusade against religion..
 


Do you think that no Catholic children are being taught the story of Adam and Eve in Sunday school? In fact I think that plenty of them are being taught that story (and that of Noah's arc or Jonas in the belly of the big fish). I don't believe for a second that Catholics have all of a sudden all become scientists.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

... you're making this entire argument much more complicated than it could be. I simply won't accept any belief unless someone demonstrates to me that there are good reasons for holding it. That includes ancient myths like the stories of the old testament as much as the stuff that your particular religion added, like the wafer transformations and modern day miracles. If you don't like the label "atheist", simply call me a skeptic.
 
Mike, the difference between you and me, is that I don't care if you believe, accept or like my beliefs, I don't think that the world needs to be exclusively formed by religious people or that we should evolve to a point where everybody is a Christian...You on the other hand have expressed repeatedly that you wish religion wouldn't exist.

I would prefer a world without religion. If you don't care about the world, that's fine by me.

Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:


So, if you believe or not..is not my problem, that's your personal call, and should be respected, even if you don't respect (you have said this repeatedly) our beliefs.

Iván

PS: Not getting angry, by the contrary.

 


To hell with respect.Wink

I don't think that any belief should be respected. People should be free to hold any belief that they want - which includes the belief that another belief is wrong or even laughable.

Frankly, I find your respect for my belief offensive - simply because you're essentially saying that because you choose not to criticize my belief, that somehow means that I should not criticize yours. Why shouldn't we both be allowed to criticize each other's beliefs, while at the same time we let each other pursue those beliefs? IMO that is what freedom of religion means, and how freedom of religion and freedom of speech can be united. But once you demand that your belief must not be criticized, or you say that any such criticism is by definition offensive, you massively curtail freedom of speech.
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 04:36
Ivan: It doesn't matter to you whether other people share your faith? So it doesn't matter to you that they are not saved and go to hell?
Either you're incredibly callous and cold, or you don't really believe in your own eschatology.
Back to Top
seventhsojourn View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 11 2009
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 4006
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 06:25
@Mike, Just want to ask about a couple of your previous comments.
 
''I would prefer a world without religion''. This seemes to tie-in with your explanation of Hitchens' Anti-Theist stance, i.e. that religion is undesirable. It's one thing to say that religion is useless, irrational and/or morally deficient but how can anyone say we would be better off without it? Take away God, the Bible, religion... who can say what the world would be like, therefore how can anyone then say they would prefer that world? And Theists are criticised for their disregard of logic.   
 
''I will argue that Christianity is most likely not true, and even in the (IMO) unlikely case that it was true, I would not like it - independently of whether I would be sent to heaven or hell''. So, if it was true that there was an afterlife, miracles, transubstantiation, resurrection, supernatural intervention, hell etc, you wouldn't like it. How can you say that and claim to be open-minded? Also, where is the logic in being indifferent to going to hell?  
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 08:16
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

@Mike, Just want to ask about a couple of your previous comments.
 
 Also, where is the logic in being indifferent to going to hell?  

No Atheist is indifferent to the prospect of going to Hell.  They are terrified of it.  Atheism is not based on logic.  It is based on fear.  It is one of the most fear-mongering religious positions on the planet (at this moment, anyway).  What is the atheist afraid of? (I’ll talk about them all here as if I knew them all in the same wan Mike speaks about all Christians as if he knew anything at all).

The atheist is driven by one fear; the fear of being wrong. It’s an incredibly powerful primary-school  oriented tool.  This is why guys like his precious 4 Horsemen prey on school children. They use the fear of being wrong to convince school children to join them.  Those children are at the most vulnerable time in their lives with respect to the “I must make sure I am always right” syndrome.  The education system demands that all students take this stance and “Pitch Men” like Mike's high priests exploit that fear. (I see Dawkins and Britney Spears in the same light, pure entertainers with no regard for what they have to say or do to sell tickets).

I’m and old man and a Christian and I can safely say that I don’t care if I’m right about it.  I believe I am but if I’m wrong, I will never know.  If the atheists are right and there is no afterlife I’ll never know.  I will, however, die believing in it so I win.  I have no reason to fear that it is not there. That possibility does not change my belief or day to day attempt to live out the tenets of my faith.  When I die I will have won or lost the prize according to my behavior regardless of whether the prize exists or not. 

The atheist cannot stand in my shoes.  His fear of being wrong drives his reliance upon science as a way of “knowing”.  Scientists love to say that they don’t know everything as an easy statement to make, and one that excuses their errors. After all it was the scientists that told us the world was flat, not the Bible.  Religious people simply believed it because it made sense at the time.  Scientists were the olds who told us we could tell what kind of person someone was by reading the bumps on his head, not the Bible.  Those were scientific mistakes and most scientists admit them.

So science with its logic and reason seems to be the only way to be really sure of anything and logically, one must place all one’s faith in it.  But as Dawkins says (and Mike parrots) “I caahhhn’T be 100% ssure thatT Gud doessn’T exissT”, (with heavy emphasis on the letter t and extra sibilance).

This is the great and terrible fear of the atheist, that they may be wrong.  As I said, if I am wrong I still win because I will never know I was wrong.  For the atheist, however it is a different story.  If he is wrong he will have to face God, explain himself, and be judged accordingly and this prospect is terrifying.

Athiests will say that that don’t have this fear because of their lack  of belief but that is testimonial and cannot be backed up by any facts or "even anything that could remotely be called evidence", so it is 99.77% (Dawkins’ number for the likelihood of God’s  existence) probable that it is untrue.  Atheism (post-theism may be different, more research is required) is a religious position based upon fear.



Edited by Trademark - August 22 2010 at 08:18
Back to Top
stonebeard View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 27 2005
Location: NE Indiana
Status: Offline
Points: 28057
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 08:33
I have to work but I'll get the first word in here before the DELUGE of responses to that.

My atheist stance is based on the inability to have faith in a religion. There was a fear of being wrong in the beginning of it, but the idiocy of the idea of hell just overpowers the fear into complacency with nothingness in death. Maybe it's suppression, it doesn't matter. Fear of hell is a horrible reason to have faith in any religion, so even if I did fear hell, it wouldn't make a difference. Even Christians have to fear hell, or do so involuntarily until they suppress the fear with it's corollary, the assurance that they'll end up in heaven.

Thanks society for making hell so primal, terrifying and pervasive a thought that all people exposed to it fear it, not only atheists.

No one's beliefs are watertight or void of suppression of things they don't like. I'm partially atheist because I want to be, to be free of religious constraints. I assume faithful people are reinforced in their faith by wanting to be faithful as well.
Back to Top
Negoba View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: July 24 2008
Location: Big Muddy
Status: Offline
Points: 5210
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 09:45
Most of us have mixed feelings about religious questions. Part of me is the Catholic I was raised, part of me is militant agnostic "I don't know and you sure as hades don't know either," and part New Agey dabbling in Eastern Philosophy.

Mike provokes several parts of me, and the smugness of some Atheists certainly does their position no good.

We all have fear. Fear of hell is actually pretty low on the totem pole for me these days but there was a time when it certainly was strong. 

I don't want to die the final death. I fear it viscerally and monstrously. I can tell myself "If that is the nature of the universe then I started with nothing, end with nothing, and whatever I get in the middle is just bonus." But that only helps to a certain extent.

At some level I could see Atheism being an attempt to embrace the fear, fully accept the terrible truth, etc. But the kicker is, that even that doesn't give you any certainty. You still can't know. 

So we're all in the same boat, trying to figure out what to do with our time when we have any choice in the matter.

And we'll keep discussing the nasty puzzle and sometimes getting nasty about it. Some things are prettty inherent in the human condition.

So carry on.
You are quite a fine person, and I am very fond of you. But you are only quite a little fellow, in a wide world, after all.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 10:43
Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

@Mike, Just want to ask about a couple of your previous comments.
 
''I would prefer a world without religion''. This seemes to tie-in with your explanation of Hitchens' Anti-Theist stance, i.e. that religion is undesirable. It's one thing to say that religion is useless, irrational and/or morally deficient but how can anyone say we would be better off without it? Take away God, the Bible, religion... who can say what the world would be like, therefore how can anyone then say they would prefer that world? And Theists are criticised for their disregard of logic.  



It's simply my opinion that a world without who hold false beliefs would be preferable. I don't claim to know that it would be. We all have opinions, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:


 
''I will argue that Christianity is most likely not true, and even in the (IMO) unlikely case that it was true, I would not like it - independently of whether I would be sent to heaven or hell''. So, if it was true that there was an afterlife, miracles, transubstantiation, resurrection, supernatural intervention, hell etc, you wouldn't like it. How can you say that and claim to be open-minded? Also, where is the logic in being indifferent to going to hell?  


Does open-mindedness mean that I have to like everything? I don't think so. And about my heaven/hell comment: First of all, I believe that neither exist, so in my daily life (despite of what Trademark claims to know about me and other Atheists) I'm really being indifferent about it. But if it existed and was anything like it is described to be by Christian doctrine, I wouldn't want to be in heaven. Praising the Biblical God for all eternity? Thanks, but no thanks. Being tortured for eternity? I can't see the difference.LOL
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 10:59
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

@Mike, Just want to ask about a couple of your previous comments.
 
 Also, where is the logic in being indifferent to going to hell?  

No Atheist is indifferent to the prospect of going to Hell.  They are terrified of it.  Atheism is not based on logic.  It is based on fear.  It is one of the most fear-mongering religious positions on the planet (at this moment, anyway).  What is the atheist afraid of? (I’ll talk about them all here as if I knew them all in the same wan Mike speaks about all Christians as if he knew anything at all).



Why should Atheists be afraid of hell? I mean, if they were, they would become religious. Of course a problem would be which religion to choose. They all claim to be the right ones, yet they can't all be correct.

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


The atheist is driven by one fear; the fear of being wrong. It’s an incredibly powerful primary-school  oriented tool.  This is why guys like his precious 4 Horsemen prey on school children. They use the fear of being wrong to convince school children to join them.  Those children are at the most vulnerable time in their lives with respect to the “I must make sure I am always right” syndrome.  The education system demands that all students take this stance and “Pitch Men” like Mike's high priests exploit that fear. (I see Dawkins and Britney Spears in the same light, pure entertainers with no regard for what they have to say or do to sell tickets).

I could say something in response here, but I'll rather sit back and enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. [insert popcorn munching emoticon here]

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


I’m and old man and a Christian and I can safely say that I don’t care if I’m right about it.  I believe I am but if I’m wrong, I will never know.  If the atheists are right and there is no afterlife I’ll never know.  I will, however, die believing in it so I win.  I have no reason to fear that it is not there. That possibility does not change my belief or day to day attempt to live out the tenets of my faith.  When I die I will have won or lost the prize according to my behavior regardless of whether the prize exists or not. 

What a selfish attitude. Well, I care about the world we live in. I don't know whether I still will 20-30 years from now.

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


The atheist cannot stand in my shoes.  His fear of being wrong drives his reliance upon science as a way of “knowing”.  Scientists love to say that they don’t know everything as an easy statement to make, and one that excuses their errors. After all it was the scientists that told us the world was flat, not the Bible.  Religious people simply believed it because it made sense at the time.  Scientists were the olds who told us we could tell what kind of person someone was by reading the bumps on his head, not the Bible.  Those were scientific mistakes and most scientists admit them.

Fear. Of hell? Not at all. Of dying? Sure. Who isn't afraid of death? Right ... religious people who bought into the idea that this life is just a prelude to the real life. If I'm right, we'll both never know. If you're right, there's a good change that we'll meet again in hell - at least if you didn't pick the right religion (there are 30,000+ denominations of Christianity alone).

In any case, I doubt that even jampa or Iván would agree with your theory that all Atheists are driven by fear of hell. Like I said in the first post, if they were they would try to become religious.

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


So science with its logic and reason seems to be the only way to be really sure of anything and logically, one must place all one’s faith in it.  But as Dawkins says (and Mike parrots) “I caahhhn’T be 100% ssure thatT Gud doessn’T exissT”, (with heavy emphasis on the letter t and extra sibilance).

[more popcorn munching ... and some hollering like in the Married With Children sitcom]

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


This is the great and terrible fear of the atheist, that they may be wrong.  As I said, if I am wrong I still win because I will never know I was wrong.  For the atheist, however it is a different story.  If he is wrong he will have to face God, explain himself, and be judged accordingly and this prospect is terrifying.

Now it's a "great and terrible fear" ... sounds like something you'd read in the Lord of the Rings.

What if you're wrong? What if Hinduism is right - or Buddhism? How can you even sleep at night?LOL

Atheists don't believe that there is a god. I guess that you, as a Christian, are not afraid of the Muslim version of hell. And you believe in the supernatural. Now, why should an Atheist, to whom the concept of an afterlife is completely ridiculous, fear any of this nonsense?

Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:


Athiests will say that that don’t have this fear because of their lack  of belief but that is testimonial and cannot be backed up by any facts or "even anything that could remotely be called evidence", so it is 99.77% (Dawkins’ number for the likelihood of God’s  existence) probable that it is untrue.  Atheism (post-theism may be different, more research is required) is a religious position based upon fear.



If your premise was true - don't you think that Atheists would be depressive and paranoid? I dare you to watch some episodes of the Atheist Experience show from Austin.

http://www.atheist-experience.com/

You can even call in and confront them with your theory that Atheists are driven by fear. It's a ridiculous theory IMO, and in all the books I've read and debates I've watched I've never heard anyone bring it up.


But: I'm glad that you finally decided to post something that's relevant to the topic.Smile
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 11:14
And since this is so spot on regarding your theory of Atheists being afraid that they might be wrong:

(And since you love to rant about DawkinsLOL)




Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 15:06
"I have to work but I'll get the first word in here before the DELUGE of responses to that."

Just a way to keep the thread moving.  I was getting bored.
Back to Top
Equality 7-2521 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 11 2005
Location: Philly
Status: Offline
Points: 15784
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 15:09
I feel sorry for you Mike.
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 15:37
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Originally posted by seventhsojourn seventhsojourn wrote:

@Mike, Just want to ask about a couple of your previous comments.
 
 Also, where is the logic in being indifferent to going to hell?  

No Atheist is indifferent to the prospect of going to Hell.  They are terrified of it.  Atheism is not based on logic.  It is based on fear.  It is one of the most fear-mongering religious positions on the planet (at this moment, anyway).  What is the atheist afraid of? (I’ll talk about them all here as if I knew them all in the same wan Mike speaks about all Christians as if he knew anything at all).
I'm hope you'll excuse us if we answer individually since we do not have a common script to quote from.
 
Disregarding "hell" for a moment (and not all Christians believe in that construct either). I have no fear of after-death. Of course I fear death itself, and I also fear those who have no fear of death for I certainly have no desire to be a passenger on any bus they are driving.
 
Fear of death is what keeps us alive, it stops us doing stupid things, like wondering what 240 volts tastes like or seeing if you can stop a truck like superman. If there is an after-death then I am in no rush to see what it is like.
 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

The atheist is driven by one fear; the fear of being wrong.
I have no fear of being wrong. I've been wrong several times and it doesn't frighten me - In 1978 I said Kate Bush's Wuthering Heights would never be a hit and put money on it - that statement of utter wrongness cost me 5 quid. Give me enough time and I'll think of more cases where I was wrong.
 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

It’s an incredibly powerful primary-school  oriented tool.  This is why guys like his precious 4 Horsemen prey on school children. They use the fear of being wrong to convince school children to join them.  Those children are at the most vulnerable time in their lives with respect to the “I must make sure I am always right” syndrome.  The education system demands that all students take this stance and “Pitch Men” like Mike's high priests exploit that fear. (I see Dawkins and Britney Spears in the same light, pure entertainers with no regard for what they have to say or do to sell tickets).
I agree with you - it is completely dispicable and should be outlawed with a strict punishment. The corruption of young minds by self-serving busibodies is a henious crime.
 
Fifteen years ago my daughter came home from primary school in floods of tears having been told by her teacher that I would go to hell for not believing in god - I was (and still am) as outraged and angered by that harpy's interference in how I raise my child as you are with Dawkins - more so in fact since she is my child, not yours, not Dawkin's and certainly not that hag's. Children's minds are maleable and will believe whatever nonsense they are told, and the more authoritive the person the more it will be believed. I had intended to enlighten my daughter when she had reached an age where she could form her own opinions and beliefs based upon her own observations and experiences, but thanks to this "well-meaning" harridan I had to attempt to do that when she was just five years old: "Sorry tuppence, teachers don't know everything and sometimes they are wrong."
 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

I’m and old man and a Christian and I can safely say that I don’t care if I’m right about it.  I believe I am but if I’m wrong, I will never know.  If the atheists are right and there is no afterlife I’ll never know.  I will, however, die believing in it so I win.  I have no reason to fear that it is not there. That possibility does not change my belief or day to day attempt to live out the tenets of my faith.  When I die I will have won or lost the prize according to my behavior regardless of whether the prize exists or not. 
Good for you.
 
There is also the option of living by those very same tenets without the need for faith to justify it or accompany it. Following those ideals in fear of some divine retribution or the promise of some reward in the after-death is to me, a dishonesty. Surely it is better to live following all those well-intentioned ideals without goading and coercion and without the need to stop every five minutes to thank the stick-wielder for allowing you that privilege. For mankind (bless us) to achieve a level of humanity that extends beyond self-preservation and self-protection that is dictated by the simple need to survive, then I would rather do that through my own will and judgement, than to follow a doctrine written in some ancient tongue by a group of men in a far away time whose cultural requirements and habits are as distant from mine as it is possible to get. The prize for that is not in some imagined after-death - it is in the here and now - it is in the smile on a face, it is in the knowledge that you moved through life leaving the slightest of footprints and doing the most possible good and the least possible harm that it you could, it is in the simple pleasure of making someone happy for no reward or gain and for not making someone utterly miserable just because you could. Anyone can do this - it's not beyond anyone's reach just because they've hitched their waggon to the "wrong" caravan. I don't need a prize to win.
 
But if there is a prize and I am denied it then it actually changes nothing, if that then results in some eternal damnation of fire and brimstone because I lived my life exactly like a "good christian" should, but wasn't actually "a christian" and didn't actually praise and worship a god, so should recieve the same punishment some despot who murdered millions, then as long as that harpy who made my daughter cry is stood beside me I'll not complain.Wink
 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

The atheist cannot stand in my shoes.  
I can Approve, well I could Ermm I mean I did Ermm for a while. Confused 
 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

His fear of being wrong drives his reliance upon science as a way of “knowing”.  Scientists love to say that they don’t know everything as an easy statement to make, and one that excuses their errors. After all it was the scientists that told us the world was flat, not the Bible.  Religious people simply believed it because it made sense at the time.  Scientists were the olds who told us we could tell what kind of person someone was by reading the bumps on his head, not the Bible.  Those were scientific mistakes and most scientists admit them.
Erm... well No. Or Yes. Or whatever the contrary answer is.
 
Early "scientists" were not scientists, they were philosophers, scholars, alchemists and (to a man) religious followers. All of their "science" was adapted from scripture and adapted again to fit the observations they made. Flat Earth was discarded by Pythagoras (a non-christian Shocked) in 6BCE and most scholars accepted the spherical earth cosmology from that moment on - the Flat Earth thing is actually a bit of a myth. Phrenology was a very brief "fad" (I think it lasted about 20 years) that was quickly dismissed as pseudoscience, however the concept that parts of the brain had different functions was carried into science and the current science of neurology has proven that to be correct. 
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

So science with its logic and reason seems to be the only way to be really sure of anything and logically, one must place all one’s faith in it.  But as Dawkins says (and Mike parrots) “I caahhhn’T be 100% ssure thatT Gud doessn’T exissT”, (with heavy emphasis on the letter t and extra sibilance).

Is this a rant? Whatever point you are making has passed me by, but given your concept of science, that doesn't worry me much.
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

This is the great and terrible fear of the atheist, that they may be wrong.  As I said, if I am wrong I still win because I will never know I was wrong.  For the atheist, however it is a different story.  If he is wrong he will have to face God, explain himself, and be judged accordingly and this prospect is terrifying.
Terrifying for whom? To me this appears to be a lose-lose situation for all concerned (and those not concerned too). If you "win" you can still "lose" because the ultimate judgement is beyond your control and cannot be anticipated, whereas if an atheist "loses" there is still a chance that they could "win" simply because you cannot know the mind of your god (and if you presume to know I believe that's an automatic forfeit) - which leads to the interesting scenario where you win but lose while he loses yet wins. Cool, I'm beginning to like this game, though I don't think Cain was impressed with it.
Originally posted by Trademark Trademark wrote:

Athiests will say that that don’t have this fear because of their lack  of belief but that is testimonial and cannot be backed up by any facts or "even anything that could remotely be called evidence", so it is 99.77% (Dawkins’ number for the likelihood of God’s  existence) probable that it is untrue.  Atheism (post-theism may be different, more research is required) is a religious position based upon fear.
You haven't really explained what it is that Atheists are supposed to be afraid of. Being wrong is not a fearful thing. I may be curious as to what you view of the post-theism position is, I may not. Hell and satan are inventions of man too, so they are about as fearsome as Frankenstein's monster or Mr Hyde to me.
What?
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 19:54
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

Ivan: It doesn't matter to you whether other people share your faith? So it doesn't matter to you that they are not saved and go to hell?
Either you're incredibly callous and cold, or you don't really believe in your own eschatology.
 
As I explained before, we believe not only Catholics can reach salvation, but you guys seem to ignore what we say repeatedly, here is the quote:
 
Will quote again the document, and hope you remember it this time:
 
Quote

Dogmatic Constitution on the Church - Lumen Gentium" (1964)
 
"The Catholic Church professes that it is the one, holy catholic and apostolic Church of Christ; this it does not and could not deny. But in its Constitution the Church now solemnly acknowledges that the Holy Ghost is truly active in the churches and communities separated from itself. To these other Christian Churches the Catholic Church is bound in many ways: through reverence for God's word in the Scriptures; through the fact of baptism; through other sacraments which they recognize."

5. The non-Christian may not be blamed for his ignorance of Christ and his Church; salvation is open to him also, if he seeks God sincerely and if he follows the commands of his conscience, for through this means the Holy Ghost acts upon all men; this divine action is not confined within the limited boundaries of the visible Church." 6
 
Now, about the atheists, I have been taught that what was understood as hell is not a place of torture, but the eternal separation from God, and Atheists have already decided they don't need God, as a fact Mike said that he would prefer anything that an eternal life with a tyrant...So eternity without God would not be a punishment for them.

So I'm not cold neither I believe in my own eschatology, I believe God gave us freedom to decide what we want, and every person is free to make that choice, an all of this in perfect agreement with my Church's dogma..

 
Iván
            
Back to Top
Textbook View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member


Joined: October 08 2009
Status: Offline
Points: 3281
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:03

But doesn't all that watering-down make actually being Christian not particularly important?

Back to Top
tuxon View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: September 21 2004
Location: plugged-in
Status: Offline
Points: 5502
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:15
Originally posted by Textbook Textbook wrote:

But doesn't all that watering-down make actually being Christian not particularly important?

 
That isn't watering down, it's accepting there's more ways that lead to rome than just Via Appia.
I'm always almost unlucky _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Id5ZcnjXSZaSMFMC Id5LM2q2jfqz3YxT
Back to Top
Finnforest View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: February 03 2007
Location: The Heartland
Status: Offline
Points: 17226
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:18
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

I have no fear of being wrong. I've been wrong several times and it doesn't frighten me - In 1978 I said Kate Bush's Wuthering Heights would never be a hit and put money on it - that statement of utter wrongness cost me 5 quid. Give me enough time and I'll think of more cases where I was wrong.
 


LOLClapLOLClapLOLClap


Thanks Dean, that was killer.....wish I could have gotten in on that wagerLOL
...that moment you realize you like "Mob Rules" better than "Heaven and Hell"
Back to Top
Trademark View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 21 2006
Location: oHIo
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:39

Arrrggghh,  Dean!  You of all people I’d never have thought would fall for this.  According to the rules of Mike’s thread I have to disqualify all your statements as being testimonial and lacking any scientific proof.  Therefore, according to Mike’s rules I am correct in saying that you, actually are afraid because you have not properly proven otherwise.  (Mike chose the “personal attack” method of answering my post which is usually the only way to avoid the trap.)

I was just trying to contribute (Its bloody difficult to contribute something relevant to a thread that is totally irrelevant and radiator noodles was already taken) according to the rules of engagement Mike set out from the beginning:

1.    1. Make an outlandish and (hopefully) insulting broad statement misrepresenting the beliefs of a large group of people who never did anything to you and whom you know next to nothing about.

2.    2. Post dozens of pointless internet videos to prove… well I don’t know what that’s supposed to prove.  (I realize I did not follow through on this part)

3.    3. Disqualify any and all responses due to lack of scientific proof (it helps if can work some extra ridicule into your disqualification by saying something like, “It even features a talking snake.” o “none of that is objective, let alone evidence”, or something along those lines). Extra points are given for the use of the words ”fairy tale” or “delusion”

4.    4. Always make sure to remind everyone that the burden of proof falls not on the person making the original outlandish and insulting post, but upon any and all who try to respond to it.

5.    5. Amend the rules in any way needed whenever it looks like someone else may be right.

AnsAnd anyway, Kate Bush had a hit??  Not in this country pal.



An



Edited by Trademark - August 22 2010 at 20:41
Back to Top
The T View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: October 16 2006
Location: FL, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:46
Kate Bush had a hit/She didn't... is it settled? 
Back to Top
Ivan_Melgar_M View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator

Honorary Collaborator

Joined: April 27 2004
Location: Peru
Status: Offline
Points: 19557
Direct Link To This Post Posted: August 22 2010 at 20:49
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Are you telling me that in 1893 every Catholic accepted Evolution? Come on. I'm actually sure that even today many Catholics don't accept Evolution.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm">http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

It's one thing to make public statements about "embracing science", "being open-minded" or announcing/decreeing that "science and religion are fully compatible", and an entirely other thing to actually demonstrate that any of that is actually the case. As seen in this article, Ratzinger is far from actually embracing the theory of evolution in all it entails.

 
Mike, don't change my words to make my statement seem absurd, I never said all Catholics believed in evolution in 1893, I said:
 
Originally posted by Iván Iván wrote:

You make claims that are false, and that's a fact, for example, you say that only by decree of the 60's we can accept evolution, when as a fact Evolution is at least accepted as a possibility since 1893 (Only 34 years after published).
 

Saying all Catholics believed in evolution in 1893 is different that proving with official documents that the Pope admitted in an Encyclical document that evolution is a possibility that must be studied.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



We've been over this a hundred times (and feel free to go back and count and then accuse me of making another false claim Wink). The core principles of Christianity rely on a literal understanding of the Bible. It's because a literal understanding of the Bible is today an absolutely laughable and completely indefensible position that theologians have now modified these principles to such an extent that on one hand they again seem to be compatible with scientific facts, but on the other hand modern Christianity has little to do with the actual thing. And don't you think that Christianity is closely related to Jesus? If so, isn't it relevant what early Christianity taught? If he really was/is God and had such an important role in mankind, how could he/they/it be so incompetent as to allow the supposedly divinely inspired authors of the Bible to get it all wrong, and then watch people basing their live on these wrong ideas for thousand(s) of years?

Some Christian beliefs maybe, Catholic beliefs not....But again you want to place us in a no win situation, if we stay with our early beliefs as some fundamentalists do, it's wrong, and if we evolve...We are liars...Please Mike!!!!!

Originally posted by Mr Progreak Mr Progreak wrote:

As a Christian you can't know your flaws - you are not capable of making moral decisions that overrule God's decisions. It is not your place to decide that some of his rules are important, and others aren't. Essentially, you're a sinner. Which is the purpose of religion and especially Catholicism ... it's all designed to make you feel guilty even if you're doing "the right thing".

Yes, I'm a sinner, never said the contrary, we all are sinners in one or another way, but that's an issue between God and me.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Why is "today" the right time? You have been wrong for thousands of years, what makes you so sure that you have it right today? Maybe you still have it wrong and it will be another 500 years until you have it right.

Atheists have none of these problems because they don't rely on one fixed collection of ancient books. In 500 years atheists will still be around and evaluating observations of the real world, while Christians will probably be still around attempting to make excuses for why their holy book conflicts with these observations.

Maybe our perception of some dogmas will change....I have to admit this because I don't own the only truth...But we don't make excuses it's an official document of the Pope by the powers invested to him 2,000 years ago. Most surely we will evolve more, and that's a good thing.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

You change, but you don't change. You change your behavior, but you still claim that your religion is right and has been right from the beginning. By this I don't mean that you - as a person - agree with everything the Catholic church has ever done. But if you're a Catholic, you believe not only that there is a God, but also that the core teachings of the Catholic church are true - and that this God wants people to be baptized, receive communion, confess their sins, priests and nuns not to have sex, people not to have sex before marriage etc.. Most of these rules follow from a literal understanding of the Bible. This literal understanding has been proven wrong in most cases. Yet you still go on and passionately defend Catholicism. It simply makes no sense to me how you can be a modern, enlightened human being on one hand and a devout Catholic on the other hand.

I defend Catholicism mainly because we are able to accept we are fallible and that the Bible must not be understood literally.

BTW: Most of our beliefs don't come from a literal interpretation of the Bible, for example celibacy of priests and Nuns is not mentioned in the Bible, it's an  ecclesial law declared by the Pope and not a doctrine ....BTW: There are exceptions to this rule, actually many Anglican married priests are joining  the Catholic Church, and they are allowed to remind married and be priests..

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


In a way it's like a mutating virus, and of course that's a "threat" to doctors who attempt to fight it. But on the other hand, your evolution usually means that your position gets weaker (religion retreats as science advances), so it's not so bad after all.

 
I won't commen his quote,. because the comparison  so arrogant and absurd, that needs no comment.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

That's not what I said - you may want to read it again
.
 
Yes you said it
  1. Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

    I would like for humanity to evolve beyond the need for religion. Some of us already have,
    You say you want people to evolve beyond the need of religion, and that you already achieved this goal...Ergo, you are saying you have evolved more than us.
  2. Originally posted by MrProgFreak MrProgFreak wrote:

    I simply think that our brains are not functioning completely logical all the time (to put it euphemistically), and while mechanisms like confirmation bias and the various ways of coping with cognitive dissonance certainly were assets in our evolution, they also make us vulnerable to not only acquire false beliefs, but also to having great difficulties to identifying and getting rid of them - the longer we carry them and the more we invest in them, the more difficult it is.
    ...If you have already got rid of what you call "false beliefs", it's s sign that your brains hare able to function in a more logical way...Ergo, your brains are more developed.

Maybe you should read what you write.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Do you think that no Catholic children are being taught the story of Adam and Eve in Sunday school? In fact I think that plenty of them are being taught that story (and that of Noah's arc or Jonas in the belly of the big fish). I don't believe for a second that Catholics have all of a sudden all become scientists.

Probably they are teaching his to very young children somewhere (Even when I don't know what's a Sunday school, I never went to one, we go to Mass with our parents since we are able to walk and even before), but when reach the age to  understand the whole reality, we are taught the official doctrine, as I was taught in first or second grade.

And you are right, not all the Catholics have became scientists, neither all the atheists

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

I would prefer a world without religion. If you don't care about the world, that's fine by me.
So..must I understand that those who have a religion don't care for the world?

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


To hell with respect.Wink

I don't think that any belief should be respected. People should be free to hold any belief that they want - which includes the belief that another belief is wrong or even laughable.

Have I said t or have the church said that any belief is laughable? I have just copied the Lumen Gentium in athe previous reply, read it (even when I have posted it twice before in replies to you) and then tell me if we laugh about any belief.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Frankly, I find your respect for my belief offensive - simply because you're essentially saying that because you choose not to criticize my belief, that somehow means that I should not criticize yours.
 
No Mike, you are absolutely wrong, I'm expressing my disagreements with your position since the start, but this doesn't mean  I don't  respect your position.
 
And if I do it, is because I have been taught to respect other person's beliefs or disbeliefs, not because I ask anything in exchange......What you respect, is your choice, not mine, I only ask for the normal courtesy in a forum in the same way you ask for respect when you are talking about a metal band..
 
If you are offended by respect...well, that explains many posts
 
Originally posted by MrProgFreak MrProgFreak wrote:

Why shouldn't we both be allowed to criticize each other's beliefs, while at the same time we let each other pursue those beliefs? IMO that is what freedom of religion means, and how freedom of religion and freedom of speech can be united. But once you demand that your belief must not be criticized, or you say that any such criticism is by definition offensive, you massively curtail freedom of speech.
 
Do this words come from a person that have said that the world wouuld be better without religion?
 
And you said we are not honest?
 
BTW: I never asked for non criticism, I asked for normal respect even if you disagree with us.
 
Iván


Edited by Ivan_Melgar_M - August 23 2010 at 01:10
            
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 8788899091 174>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.359 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.