"Christopher A.Lee" <calee@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:b53vg3teav23n2h297imkjcikt82g042s3@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 10:52:08 -0400, "Rob Brown"
> <bbrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Midjis" <midwinter_m@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:1192195377.289797.89940@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On 12 Oct, 13:45, Al Klein <ruk...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Anyone making the claim, believer or not (and why would a
non-believer
>>>> make the claim), assumes the burden of proof.
>>>
>>> Look at it this way: a believer believes; has all the proof he or she
>>> needs already. Not one scrap of that proof would satisfy a non-
>>> believer, who doesn't believe. The non-believer knows that there's
>>> nothing there to be proved. If s/he thought there was, s/he'd be a
>>> believer already and wouldn't need proof.
>>>
>>> Again, religion is a matter of individual perception. You either have
>>> it or you don't. And only the individual can adapt his or her own
>>> point of view, either to acquire religion, to lose religion, or to
>>> change religion. It is a process that happens largely without
>>> conscious choice, and regardless of attempts by others to prove or
>>> disprove one or the other position.
>>>
>>> Anyone who thinks that their point of view on this is relevant to
>>> anyone else is misguided. Anyone who thinks that they have a duty, or
>>> even the ability, to persuade, coerce, or fool another into changing
>>> their views in either or any direction has completely misunderstood
>>> the nature of the thing.
>>
>> Would that include missionaries and those sending them out to
>> proselytize?
>>They certainly see converting non believers as their duty. How about the
>>churches which pay for commercial billboards which proselytize or the
>>church
>>property billboard message that attempts to persuade? How about the
person
>>handing out tracts on the sidewalk or leaving a stack in a public place
>>for
>>distribution?
>
> You forgot creationism, imposed prayer etc in public schools. And now
> religious fundamentalism in the military. Discrimination against
> atheists in the scouts and elsewhere including even in schools, work
> etc. Politicians pandering to the religious at everybody else's
> expense. Bush's father in his successful Presidential campaign saying
> atheists shouldn't be citizens. Bush claiming God told him to smite
> first Afghanistan and then Iraq. Etc.
Well, I didn't actually forget. I just got lazy. The list is so long, but
I
suppose he understands the question.
>> You suggest a scenario which would have both believers and non
believers
>>almost never discuss their beliefs.
>>
>> The discussion, if it happens at all, can always be interpreted as
either
>>side trying to persuade the other.
>
> There is only one "side". Theists bringing up their beliefs
> inappropriately. Dawkins, Harris etc respond to that.
Strictly speaking, wouldn't that depend on whether the individual atheist
was what's described as a "weak or strong" atheist? Would the position of
a
"strong atheist" constitute a "side" in a discussion?
I do understand the general concept you state but taking any two
individuals I'm not sure it would always be the case.
> Theists who imagine the whole word revolves around their religion are
> the ones who impose it and can't understand the reaction.
>
>>Why are you even posting to discussion groups on the subject? I think
your
>>last paragraph states an untenable position. It practice it would forbid
>>almost any discussion of religion between believers and non believers
and
>>even between believers, particularly of different religions. The fact
that
>>you are posting causes me to question your stated position.
>>Rob Brown
>>
|
