[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 05:01 PM, said:

Of course not.

She quips after he bares his inner most secrets

[Terez]

Hey, at least I didn't quip when you bared your outermost secrets.

[Cold Iron]

still no comment i see..

[Shinrei]

I actually agree with Terez from the standpoint that I dont think athiests need to frame their part of the debate as if from some sort of removed (aloof) position. In order to combat messages which attack them, they have every right to, and should, play the game as it stands. Better to be seen than conveniently ignored IMO.

This post has been edited by The 20th: 09 January 2009 - 09:30 AM

[Camel]

Geez, I go take a dump and, twelve hours later, emerge to find you guys have gone on without me.

CI: Is asking someone not to impose their views on me imposing my views on them?

I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I do care about is when your (the general you, not you you) beliefs start affecting me and mine, when your beliefs say homosexuals are bad and are going to hell and can't have the same privileges as straights, when your beliefs let you get out of paying taxes (churches, et al), when you're in my face telling me I'm going to Hell because I'm Jewish and I clearly haven't accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That's what I care about.

You want to be a Scientologist? Fine. But leave me out of it.

So the answer to your question is no, I don't think I'm imposing my views on others. I'm asking them to not impose theirs on mine.

[Cold Iron]

Camel, on Jan 10 2009, 04:29 AM, said:

Geez, I go take a dump and, twelve hours later, emerge to find you guys have gone on without me.

CI: Is asking someone not to impose their views on me imposing my views on them?

I don't care if you believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What I do care about is when your (the general you, not you you) beliefs start affecting me and mine, when your beliefs say homosexuals are bad and are going to hell and can't have the same privileges as straights, when your beliefs let you get out of paying taxes (churches, et al), when you're in my face telling me I'm going to Hell because I'm Jewish and I clearly haven't accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior. That's what I care about.

You want to be a Scientologist? Fine. But leave me out of it.

So the answer to your question is no, I don't think I'm imposing my views on others. I'm asking them to not impose theirs on mine.

They could say the same, this is the complaint of the minority the world over, the system is not in your favour. You can move, you can try to change the system, or you can try to impose your views on others. They, as the majority and according to our system, have the right to impose their views on you. You have a vote and you have free speech.

That was harsh I know. I empathise with you. It would be my preference to remove religion from politics too, even in this country the major party leaders have recently professed a religious belief or affiliation, I did not vote for them.

[Cold Iron]

The 20th, on Jan 9 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

I actually agree with Terez from the standpoint that I dont think athiests need to frame their part of the debate as if from some sort of removed (aloof) position. In order to combat messages which attack them, they have every right to, and should, play the game as it stands. Better to be seen than conveniently ignored IMO.

Once you enter into it, you admit that their messages affect you. While you a aloof, you can claim (truly or otherwise) that you don't give a shit about the childish games of halfwits.

[Shinrei]

You should be grateful that churches are exempt from taxes. If taxation = representation this would put them in a position to demand greater political representation of their religion.

[Terez]

The 20th, on Jan 9 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

You should be grateful that churches are exempt from taxes. If taxation = representation this would put them in a position to demand greater political representation of their religion.

I don't see how - they act as if they pay taxes now.

[Camel]

Terez, on Jan 9 2009, 05:36 PM, said:

The 20th, on Jan 9 2009, 04:48 PM, said:

You should be grateful that churches are exempt from taxes. If taxation = representation this would put them in a position to demand greater political representation of their religion.

I don't see how - they act as if they pay taxes now.

Taxation doesn't equal representation, so that argument's moot anyway.

[Shinrei]

Yes, but if we're advocating seperation of church and state it makes sense. Churches and other religious groups do not receive government support/funds. (If they are, they shouldn't be)

[Cause]

Cold Iron, on Jan 10 2009, 12:45 AM, said:

The 20th, on Jan 9 2009, 08:11 PM, said:

I actually agree with Terez from the standpoint that I dont think athiests need to frame their part of the debate as if from some sort of removed (aloof) position. In order to combat messages which attack them, they have every right to, and should, play the game as it stands. Better to be seen than conveniently ignored IMO.

Once you enter into it, you admit that their messages affect you. While you a aloof, you can claim (truly or otherwise) that you don't give a shit about the childish games of halfwits.

Of course the message affects people. The jewish community in SA often riots over jews for jesus adds which are placed in jewish areas. As an aethiest I dont like being told Im going to hell by the gordians or Jews for jesus on my campus. Christians get anoyed by the billboards for strip clubs, so do caring parents, and fight to keep gay adds, go figure what this is, off the TV and posters. Advertising affects people. It would not be a billion dollar industry if it did not. Why pretend othewise. When ou can fight fire with fire!

[cauthon]

I think one of the issues we always struggle with is the fact that here is no way to disprove god. No scientific advance can be cause to state with 100% certainty that there is no god. Together with that comes the fact that religious people do not grasp why science people try to avoid god. god is irrelevant to their experiments and theories.

IMO, Dawkins is just a zealot, as much as religious people who think themselves above others who think there is no god. I think he should just learn to accept that whatever he says, whatever theory he comes up with, does not mean there is no god. Adversely, no sacred text proves there is a god, as far as prove in the mathematical sense goes. Hence the term 'faith'.

As for the slogan ... there are two sides to it. From one pov, it amounts to the same as saying 'there probably won't be an avalanche, go ski in the wild, no need to worry'. But sometimes, the avalanche does happen. But then again, from the other pov, mostly it does not happen, and people can get on without thinking about it. But there's still a risk involved. Each person should make up his mind if he/she wants to take that risk. The same goes with ignoring the possibility that god does exist.

[Camel]

cauthon, on Jan 12 2009, 07:51 AM, said:

IMO, Dawkins is just a zealot, as much as religious people who think themselves above others who think there is no god. I think he should just learn to accept that whatever he says, whatever theory he comes up with, does not mean there is no god. Adversely, no sacred text proves there is a god, as far as prove in the mathematical sense goes. Hence the term 'faith'.

Absolutely. I've always stuck by my beliefs, but only because I haven't seen anything that explains it better. If you can show me something that explains the world better than my current view, then I'll switch. It's as simple as that. And I'll keep an open mind about it, too. I used to be a die-hard atheist, then a die-hard Christian, and now I'm kind of in the middle, somewhere between agnosticism and theism. There's this guy I know from another board who has a blog, and nearly every blog he has attacks religion. It gets kind of old, and honestly imo, he's on the verge of crossing over into CI's "forcing views on others" territory. He's so so so anti-religion that he approaches zealot status and won't accept the tiniest possibility that science can't prove everything.

Now, I think it's perfectly okay to accept that there are spiritual forces -- I have my own experiences to support that in my mind -- but I accept science at face value, too. Right now, I accept spiritual forces in lieu of a scientific explanation, because it makes the most sense to me. However, should you come along with a scientific explanation that explains my experience, then hell yeah, fuck the spiritual forces and bring on the science.

Bottom line is, like someone else said, you can never disprove the existence of a god, and there will always be things that need to be explained that we can't test empirically. As such, I don't understand my acquaintance's zealousness against religion because, like cauthon said, god is irrelevant to science. If you don't think God exists, then why bother attacking everyone who believes in a religion? I certainly don't. I only get pissed when certain fundy nutcases use their religion and unsupported beliefs to infringe upon my rights and privileges, as I've stated before. But other than that, I couldn't give a flying rats ass if you worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Thor or Zeus or your sister's panties.

[Cause]

I think you need to draw a distinction between attacking god, and attacking religeon. I think Dawkins is actually far more against the latter than the former. You cant prove theirs no god. But you can try/succeed/fail at proving that thats their no evidence for alot of what the torah/koran.bible say.

Than if your dawkins who believes he has alot of proof against these religeons he gets annoyed that they dictate political policy, political correctness, get special privlages and protections. He often makes the case and very strongly that you dont refer to kids as being communist, capitalist, supporting the socialist party at age three but people happily label such children as jewish or catholic at the same age.

Thats how I see it. Personally he is an aethiest, but he is not out to get god so much as get religeon

[Cold Iron]

Cause, on Jan 14 2009, 03:52 AM, said:

I think you need to draw a distinction between attacking god, and attacking religeon. I think Dawkins is actually far more against the latter than the former. You cant prove theirs no god. But you can try/succeed/fail at proving that thats their no evidence for alot of what the torah/koran.bible say.

Than if your dawkins who believes he has alot of proof against these religeons he gets annoyed that they dictate political policy, political correctness, get special privlages and protections. He often makes the case and very strongly that you dont refer to kids as being communist, capitalist, supporting the socialist party at age three but people happily label such children as jewish or catholic at the same age.

Thats how I see it. Personally he is an aethiest, but he is not out to get god so much as get religeon

Yes and how unfortunate that the media sells more stories by painting him as a god-hater.

In so far as the indoctrination of children is concerned, I feel I am in partial agreement, especially if there is violence being carried out in the name of said doctrine. However this is in a minority of cases only and mostly I support freedom of religion/tradition and people being able to bring their children up however they wish.

As far as showing that the holy scriptures are fallible, or at least not factual, this is imo a good way to steer the religious away from their violent fundamentalist literalism and toward a more tolerant gnostic existentialism. I would like to see it continue. However, I don't really see the point of an atheist using it as a way to convert or convince.

[Terez]

RJ said:

As far as showing that the holy scriptures are fallible, or at least not factual, this is imo a good way to steer the religious away from their violent fundamentalist literalism and toward a more tolerant gnostic existentialism. I would like to see it continue. However, I don't really see the point of an atheist using it as a way to convert or convince.

We would mostly be happy with either outcome - or at least, either outcome would be better than the alternative of continued fundamentalist intolerance - but I have to wonder why you think it's a bad thing that atheists are trying to convince people of their own viewpoint but you don't think it would be bad if atheists tried to convince people of your viewpoint.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 14 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

RJ said:

As far as showing that the holy scriptures are fallible, or at least not factual, this is imo a good way to steer the religious away from their violent fundamentalist literalism and toward a more tolerant gnostic existentialism. I would like to see it continue. However, I don't really see the point of an atheist using it as a way to convert or convince.

We would mostly be happy with either outcome - or at least, either outcome would be better than the alternative of continued fundamentalist intolerance - but I have to wonder why you think it's a bad thing that atheists are trying to convince people of their own viewpoint but you don't think it would be bad if atheists tried to convince people of your viewpoint.

I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that i can't see it converting theists to atheism so there's no point for an atheist to do it.

[Terez]

Cold Iron, on Jan 13 2009, 09:59 PM, said:

Terez, on Jan 14 2009, 02:49 PM, said:

RJ said:

As far as showing that the holy scriptures are fallible, or at least not factual, this is imo a good way to steer the religious away from their violent fundamentalist literalism and toward a more tolerant gnostic existentialism. I would like to see it continue. However, I don't really see the point of an atheist using it as a way to convert or convince.

We would mostly be happy with either outcome - or at least, either outcome would be better than the alternative of continued fundamentalist intolerance - but I have to wonder why you think it's a bad thing that atheists are trying to convince people of their own viewpoint but you don't think it would be bad if atheists tried to convince people of your viewpoint.

I didn't say it was a bad thing, just that i can't see it converting theists to atheism so there's no point for an atheist to do it.

Why would you think that when such "conversions" happen all the time? You went on believing in god after it became obvious to you that the holy books were not factual, but lots of people just don't see the point.

[Cold Iron]

Terez, on Jan 14 2009, 06:04 PM, said:

Why would you think that when such "conversions" happen all the time? You went on believing in god after it became obvious to you that the holy books were not factual, but lots of people just don't see the point.

Rubbish, nobody ever simply realises or is convinced that the holy books are not factual because they clearly never attempt to be. Even the most zealous litteralist fundies get asked from very early on "what about this bit" and they know it's not fact. All they are doing is pretending it is because they've learned to do so. Perhaps some of these one day move towns meet new people and throw away their religion but it's not because they finally realised it wasn't fact, just that they stopped pretending.

And I actually didn't start believing in god until well after it was obvious to me that the holy books were not factual. Indeed it was the realisation that they were not intended to be taken as such that sparked my interest and led me down the road to belief.