On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:25:41 -0400, "Rob Brown"
<bbrown@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"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.
Strong and weak are an artificial distinction based on inexact use of
language.
You have to think what an atheist means when/if he says there's no
god.
He's not even talking about the same thing the theist is, because it's
different outside the religion in exactly the same way the Star****p
Enterprise is inside and outside the Sci-Fi series.
It's like a virtual reality. Inside it's a star****p, outside it's
something from the TV show.
Theists are like Trekkies describing us as though the Star****p
Enterprise were real because they are inside the virtual reality of
the show and can't grasp that there is a real world outside it.
Both strong and weak atheists see it as something from somebody else's
religion, a cultural phenomenon. And treat what believers tell them as
an abstract intellectual exercise in logic.
>> 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
>>>
>
|
