|
|
|
|
Ken,
I agree with your views in some ways: you will notice that I have not commented on the "marriage vs. marriage-substitute" debate, as I do not feel very strongly one way or the other. (However, I am in full agreement with Cossie over the hijacking of the political definition of marriage for religious purposes.) It's unlikely, though, that I will say, "Bravo! Good post!" because I worry that, if I do, I will be assumed to believe the same things as you. Which, I am afraid, I already know I do not. The lack of such posts does not mean I am at odds with you over everything, even though it may seem that way.
I won't quote from your emails, as obviously they are private and I don't have any right to post them on a public forum. But the reason I find it so difficult to talk to you is that you keep switching tack -- you will drop an issue and suddenly raise another, then when I reply to that one you move on to another without allowing us to come to either an agreement or an agreement to disagree on what we have already said. That method never lets us come to the root of any of your or my beliefs, which is possibly why we continue to misunderstand each other.
If you look at what I have said to you in the past, I have said things like (paraphrasing): "I have no problem with you believing that there is a God", "I accept that there is no evidence that God does not exist", "There may well be grave problems with evolutionary theory as it is at the moment" etc. If it does not count as middle ground for me, as an atheist and a scientist, to say things like that, I don't know what does. I have no problem with discussing theological issues as if God does in fact exist (though I will usually put a disclaimer that I don't think he actually does) but you don't seem to be able to achieve the rudimentary mental gymnastics required to do that in a consistent manner.
Regards,
David
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cossie
|
 |
On fire! |
Location: Exiled in North East Engl...
Registered: July 2003
Messages: 1699
|
|
|
As you accept in your letter, in no way am I hostile to you. My hostility is directed at the religious right and its activities, which I see as being potentially a very real danger to world stability. Creationist beliefs are an integral element of fundamentalist Christianity, and as you at least tentatively subscribe to those beliefs, I suppose you inevitably get caught in the crossfire - but I'm shooting at the political application of the idea, not at you as an individual!
Religious liberty is allegedly a pillar of the American Constitution, but the right demands liberty for itself while seeking to deny freedom to others. An appalling example is the attempt to enforce teaching of 'intelligent design' as if it were science. It isn't scientific, because it does not meet the rigorous scientific requirement that a theory must be capable of proof, and ultimately of disproof. I would not have a problem with the teaching of 'intelligent design' as part of religious studies - provided, of course, that it was acknowledged as only one of a wide spectrum of Christian belief systems - but equating the theory with science is gross misrepresentation.
As I said in my previous post, I accept everyone's right to seek a creed of their choice - PROVIDED that it does't infringe the freedom of others to think differently. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church was guilty of appalling crimes against humanity - for example, the Albigensian 'Crusade' and the Spanish Inquisition - in pursuit of its claim to be the only true interpreter of Christianity. Despite the enormous scientific - and indeed theological - advances of the intervening centuries, the US religious right is eagerly promoting the same claim, and in the interests of peace and humanity its doctrines must be firmly opposed.
On a more personal note, perhaps I might comment on the recent exchanges between yourself and Deeej? When discussing general principles or broad theories, there is - given goodwill on both sides - always room for middle ground. It's when we discuss facts that the shades of grey disappear. In simple terms a 'fact' is a bite-size piece of information that is either true, or is false. The conventions of intelligent discussion demand that facts should be mutually accepted or rejected; they cannot be allowed to hang in the air. Thus, as an example, let's look at the 'Lucy' discovery. You said that 'you knew for a fact' that it consisted only of a jawbone. Deeej and I contend that as a question of fact the discovery included more than 40% of a complete skeleton. We can't reasonably proceed beyond that point until all parties agree which view (or an alternative view) is correct. There are any number of independent archaeological reports available on the internet, but you have merely said that you will think about the matter. Logical development of the discussion is impossible until you respond. Again, I stress that this isn't in any sense an attack on you - for a 'creationist' you seem to have a remarkably open mind! - it's simply a question of developing a discussion in a logical, sequential manner.
I very much hope that arguing about the fundamentals of life does not prevent us from being friends!
For a' that an' a' that,
It's comin' yet for a' that,
That man tae man, the worrld o'er
Shall brithers be, for a' that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hey David and Cossie I definitely want your friendship and I am going to look into that Lucy thing as soon as I have a chance. I shouldnt really be here writing this at the moment, but I should be doing my taxes and doing all the stuff for the end of season for my two bowling leagues where I am secretary. I do think we have a lot more in common about things than otherwise and I will make an effort to try to look at that instead of trying to pick at the differences.
I really do actually agree with you about intellegent design as when I have seen it presented by some of my own leaders in my church I was highly critical of it and was probably one of the only persons to find fault with it. Just because I dont accept evolution as some kind of absolute truth does not mean I embrace intelligent design wholely either. I am just a lot more simplistic about creation than that. I dont think God went about "fine-tuning" things with the result we have evidence of "evolution" as is the explanation being given by those who favor intelligent design.
Like I have said, I promise to take some time about the Lucy thing as it is a profound point that I picked on and I will either prove my point of view or acknowledge what you said.
I am happy to see you do understand a lot of what I say and you do have the right to reject it of course. I am satisfied enough to be understood at least. Thanks. More later in the week I hope.
Ken
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
timmy
|
 |
Has no life at all |
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13806
|
|
|
Fidelity is no guarantee that a relationship will last. That takes mutual hard work.
Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
marc
|
 |
Needs to get a life! |
Registered: March 2003
Messages: 4729
|
|
|
timmy wrote:
> Fidelity is no guarantee that a relationship will last. That takes mutual hard work.
There are no guarantees of any sort reguarding anything that involves people and their relationships....
But.... not screwing around is certainly a step in the right direction at making a relationship work.
Life is great for me... Most of the time... But then I meet people online... Very few are real friends... Many say they are but know nothing of what it means... Some say they are, but are so shallow...
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
