Re: God Believers everywhere

Posted by Pasti on Mar 11, 2004 at 21:06

Re: God Believers everywhere (Kathleen Eykamp)

Kathy, for someone to repect your beliefs, you have to respect theirs.Which, among other things,means not to preach to those who choose not to listen to you - and this is valid for both believers and non-believers.
However, it is my belief that this does not exclude discussions between the two "factions", as long as both sides remain reasonable.

With these in mind, let's review your post.

"Non-believers completely blindsided by their self-import, brainwashed by their own delusions thus programmed in, being completely out of touch with natural reality and with blinkers firmly in place, are playing god, but without goodly outcomes. The two extremes must meet, eventually."

This statement of yours is completely unfounded/malicious.Most of the non-believers you talk about are the ones in touch with the natural reality. And of course, there are those playing God, but those are rather few, and usually untreatable.

As much as brainwashing goes, I would be more careful with the "syntax".I am a non-believer myself,and I am trying, whenever possible(maybe not exactly with the best results)to respect those who believe,as long as they respect my non-believing.But when it comes to the brainwashing issue, I can solve it on the spot.I can prove you everything I believe in (the scientific facts, that is), and in a reproducible manner.Can you say/do the same?

As for the "must meet" part,just remember that the two have just separated a few hundred years ago, with beneficial results at least of the scientific side.

"Indifference to a God or lack of one is one thing, but hostility towards not only a God but all whom might believe in Him, says quite another."

Again, this comment is again,rather unfounded.I never heard of atheist preachers trying to convert believers into non-belivers (communism excluded, of course, since that was another form of brainwashing).But on the other hand,the opposite happens in excess.Even on this board, say for example, anyman is what comes to mind.

Personally, I loathe when those who start preaching to those who don't want to listen (hint) complain about discrimination against their beliefs.Which happens quite often.

"It implies anger at unanswered questions from those whom MUST believe, or you wouldn't get angry about something you don't see any value in -you just pass on it."

Actually,you are missing the point.It implies annoyance,to hear the same things over and over and over,to see the same hypocrisy in 90% of the cases,the same lack of logic/reason in 95% of the cases, and the lack of any tangible and reproducible evidence in 100% of them.

As for questions,nobody (around here at least) is angry about questions being asked.So ask your questions.But you might not like the answers, for those problems for which an answer can be given.

It is my personal experience,unfortunately I might add, that in about 90% of the cases,it is the belivers who distrust and deny the answers given by the non-believers, starting nasty debates, and not the other way around.
And the explanation for this is quite simple.For a non-believer,religion has no other intrinsic value than maybe historical.
And guess who tries to convince them without any palpable arguments that they are wrong?

"As for science and faith ... and law, for that "matter" - they need not be mutually exclusive."

No, they need not.But not for the reasons you mention.

"Furthermore, there are many points on which they converge, more daily. That's a scientifically proven fact."

This is another example of unfounded statement.Pray give examples on which religion and science converge, AS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES!

"That Godly men can think with a scientific bent and Science can be more godly in outcome is HOPE, my friend - not disillusionment nor fancy."

From the logical viewpoint, this is fallacy by inadequate premises.It is only the believers in their vast majority that want to reconcile faith with fact, and it is still them who hope in a more godly outcome from science.And if I were one of them, my first question would be WHY?

Scientists don't particularly care about reconciling science with religion, they only try to study and understand nature in its entirety, irrespective of the outcome of their efforts (in the sense that no preconceived outcome is sought).Unfortunately, one cannot say the same about religion.

Follow Ups:

Post a Followup



[ Forum ] [ New Message ]