Looking for advice on expanding horizonsFollow

Ok... still not seeing any proof. Just a restatement of his beliefs. Where is this evidence?

As a matter of fact, at the bottom of the section on "harm to society" in your second link, it even says:





The same can be said of any religious text and/or person.

I say again: You're taking one religion and supplanting it with another. You're taking all of this on faith without any evidence, and calling the other side completely ignorant and wrong. You're doing exactly what you are disgusted with christians for doing. The worst part? You're supposed to be smarter than that once you leave the religious trappings aside.

If you can't understand that those things still could've been done without the religious motivation, then I don't know what to do for you.



I'm sorry, this probably sounds like a broken record, but it seems that you have to have some sort of fervor. It used to be your blind faith in religion. Not it's your blind faith in anti-religion.

There is a middle ground. It's nice here. Warm and sunny. The birds sing here. The flowers smell nice. You should visit it sometime.

Children of paranoid delusionists who think that the government is trying to track us by having doctors implant mysterious tracking devices under our skin under the pretense of treating us.



The destruction of any religious icon by Dawkinites who think that all religion should be wiped off the face of the earth "for our own good."



The execution of homosexuals by idiots who think homosexuality is icky for no other reason than it makes them sick (and probably a litle tight in the pants though they'd never admit it) to see two men kissing.

Humans are sick and twisted. They don't need religion to help them do unspeakable things.







Ah, Shador. You're cute. Really. Narrow- and simple-minded, but cute, nonetheless.

Yes, Shador, those are all examples of stupidity committed with religion. There are also Christians that don't do those things. That's the middle ground. Whether you want to call it apathy or not, it's there.

And for @#%^'s sake, if you're going to quote people to support your argument, and you don't want to seem like you're just another Dawkins drone, don't EXCLUSIVELY use quotes he used in his book.
Bullsh*t. Look up Kenneth Miller, Joan Roughgarden, or any of the other Christian evolutionary biologists. Your lack of research is extraordinarily evident.

Edited, Oct 12th 2010 1:53pm by LeWoVoc

Christian Scientists (note the dual capitals) refers to a religion, not to people who are Christian and scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Science

Your lack of research is extraordinarily evident.

My fault on that one, I misinterpreted your statement. That being said, your lack of research is still extraordinarily evident, just notsomuch on this particular point.

And it seemed like it happened here on Zam, literally from one post to the next.

I'm not questioning anything now other than why I read this entire thread...

I'm soooooooo bbboooooorrrrrrrreeeeeeeeeeedddddddddd. Seriously though Shador, you haven't expanded your horizons at all, merely swapped one for another. I suggest trying out the middle ground. You can be passionate without being fundamentalist. I seriously love comic books, but that doesn't mean that I am condescending to anyone that doesn't read comic books (instead I just realise that they are about as useful to me as nipples on a fish and move on..... Kidding). Maybe it would be a better idea for you to look at stuff that is written firstly by pople that are maybe religious, but not dogmatically so, and then maybe find something that is atheist, but not dogmatically so. That stuff probably doesn't actually exist, I dunno, I never really cared about the subject so it's probably a better idea that you take other people's advice.

Holy sub-scholar, Batman!

Who'd you **** off, Shador?

Ok. Tough for me to put into words but here goes I guess. It's not about compromise per se, it's more about being open minded. I personally do not believe in God, or Gods or any sort of controlling spirit/sky worshipy type thing, however that doesn't mean that I am completely unable to respect the opinions of anyone that does. Firstly, when you were in Jehova mode or whatever, you absolutely refused to accept any other viewpoints, and now that you claim to be atheist, you absolutely refuse to accept any opposing, religious viewpoints, and that is what makes you look like a bit of a ****.

Dunno. I suspect I must be being camped.



You are using two words that have very different meanings. Of course an athiest will not accept the idea that there is a God. If he did, he wouldn't be an athiest. That does not mean I don't respect your right to have that view. All I was attempting to do was explain why I now view things this way.

About the Jehovist crap, I will say naught else but that the creationism was just about the last vestige of that to go. My attempt to defend the quasi-creationist beliefs of JWs should in no way be taken to mean that I agreed with all of their teachings at that time.

At any rate, the issues presented above (in my previous post) have to be taken separately, as they are really separate things. The issue of creationism versus evolution is a matter of scientific fact. I neither accept nor respect the opposing view in this matter. To say that the earth is less than 10000 years old, to say that the various species did not evolve, is simply wrong. It is contrary to fact. And yes, Belk, in this matter I do think it is wrong for parents to teach creationism to their children. I don't necesarially think government intervention is necessary or even desirable in this matter, but I do think even private teaching of creationism should be met with strong disapproval from society.

Now, the other two issues are not matters of fact but of belief. I believe there is no God. I do not accept belief in God. But I do acknowledge that you have the right to believe there is a God (or Gods). God's existance can not be proven or disproven (though as I said before, it is more likely that he does not exist, but this is not 100% proveable). Still you have the right to belive in Him, if you so choose. This is a matter of belief, not fact.

As to the matter of religion's influence, as I said, it can be used for good or evil. I happen to think it has been used far more for the latter throughout human history than the former, but you are free to disagree. Again, while specific examples of religious influence are fact, the question of its overall effect is a matter of opinion, not fact, per se.




Perhaps this is the combination of Jehovist and Dawkinsian influence (both extremes, to be sure), but I veiw Agnosticism as spineless mealy-mouthing. For me, of course. You are free to hold that view if you wish. Again, it is a matter of belief, not fact. I respect your right to be Agnostic. Respect my right to be Athiest.

That's a laugh. Make a little dig about spinelessness and then demand to be respected. Just because you say that you're being respectful doesn't make it so, you know.


I was being facetious, but now I'm a bit annoyed. I don't think you really understand Agnosticism if you're going to suggest something like that. Perhaps that's a book that you ought to read.

Edited, Oct 18th 2010 9:32pm by Eske