|
|
|
|
Dear JFR,
First, I assure you I wasn't trying to insult you or make you cross.
Second, you have no doubt noticed I didn't respond immediately to what you wrote, and this was because I didn't want to be as intemperate as you were when you were responding to what I wrote.
I reproduce your post here and will intersperse my comments. They are in alternate paragraphs as I'm unable to change the font to distinguish your bits from mine.
-----------------------
You have gone one step too far as far as I am concerned. Never in all the years that I have been a part of APOS have I ever been so incensed as I am with what you posted.
How strange this sounds to me; I had no idea that I would be touching such a raw nerve.
-----------------------
Even Marc, when he was at his worst, never showed such callous and cavalier disregard for other people's religious susceptibilities.
Maybe so. I don't think other people's religious susceptibilities ought to be 'regarded' if that means treated in any other way than their other opinions.
-----------------------
To call a religious ceremony that has been practised for thousands of years by many peoples of many different ages and climes "evil" is worse than bigotry: it is crass ignorance!
I had the idea that you thought eating meat was wrong. I use the word 'evil' as the equivalent of 'wrong' when I'm talking to religious people because they mean by 'evil' the same as I mean by 'very wrong' and it saves space. As for 'thousands of years' - it seems to me that the length of time a false belief is held or a bad custom is practised is completely irrelevant when what we are discussing is whether it is right or not. (And the same is true for a true belief or a good custom.)
------------------------
You know NOTHING about what circumcision means to a Jew or a Moslem, so how can you define it as "evil"?
I can only know what they SAY it means to them and what they SAY seems to me to be profoundly lacking in sense and reason. What makes you think that you need to understand a nazi's motives before one can say that the holocaust was wrong? I don't care what circumcision means to a jew or muslim because I think circumcision (in the absence of a good medical reason) is mutilation and therefore (always) wrong. I am equally unable to understand any of the reasoning surrounding the theory that god sacrificed his son for the benefit of the human race. It doesn't make sense to me.
-------------------------
If I were to write here that the Eucharist ceremony, as the celebration of residual human sacrifice, is evil I would rightly be castigated by all.
Not by me. The suggestion that it is acceptable to eat human flesh and blood seems to me to be astonishing and quite outside the range of civilised behaviour. I think it is evil and am surprised you think I ought not to say so. And I hope the majority of sensible citizens would be with me and would not castigate you. Why wouldn't you say it is wrong if it is? Are you anxious to break down the taboos against cannibalism?
----------------------------
You are entitled to state here whatever religious or non-religious opinions you have; it is the height of rudeness and thoughtlessness to describe someone else's religious opinions in such derogatory terms as you did - especially when you could have expressed the same opinion in more polite and much less inflammatory language.
Hang on! I didn't describe anyone else's RELIGIOUS opinions in derogatory terms. I said circumcision is evil. Circumcision is a practice, not an opinion. It's you that have read further offence into what I wrote. All I meant by that is that circumcision is bad - wrong - even profoundly wrong. And I used the word 'evil' for a purpose and you well know what that purpose was: it was to emphasise the distinction between wrong deserving a slap on the wrist and so wrong that it deserves universal disapprobation. Even the readers of the Daily Mail know that wrong means 'naughty' and 'evil' means 'very wrong and not easily to be forgiven'.
----------------------
I think an outright and unequivocal apology is called for now.
This started as a discussion about whether, when the book was wrong, the religions of the book could change the book. I said they couldn't. You said they could re-interpret it so that (in effect) they could change it. I think maybe you didn't realise how much I thought (and think) the book needs to be changed. But it is interesting to consider whether I ought to apologise. What did I do that calls for an apology? It seems to me that all I did was use the word 'evil' instead of 'very bad' to describe the practice of circumcision of infant males soon after birth. It seems to me that most (well, at least many) people actually agree with me about that and the only problem is whether I am OTT in using the word 'evil' about it. Maybe others would like to go back to my original post (Apr 23 2009, 08:24) and see whether they think I was being deliberately offensive.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It always amazes me that atheist don’t see their belief system for what it obviously is, a religion!
You guys are certainly as venomous and vitriolic as any religion I have ever come across, maybe even more dogmatic than some, as if you knew the answer to all.
Sorry but I seriously doubt that. Though some times I do believe you surpass Dawkins in humanistic self centeredness. Let me reiterate, any one or any group that thinks they have transcended the Meta my need to step back and think again and again and again. After all much of what we think we knew immutable in the past has changed more than once.
Let me add, life should not be a pissing contest but a journey of discovery. Hopefully with respect of others no matter how much you may not agree with there hypothesis.
[Updated on: Mon, 27 April 2009 14:25]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Macky
|
 |
Really getting into it |
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973
|
|
|
If we can't bring ourselves to say "I don't know", I guess we have to believe in something by default. Interesting thought.
Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear arich, I don't think I have used any venomous or vitriolic words on here. Please quote me if you think I have.
You wrote:
Let me reiterate, any one or any group that thinks they have transcended the Meta my need to step back and think again and again and again.
and I am quite baffled: I simply cannot tell what you mean. Is it worth the effort to explain what it means to me?
Of course I can't accept your contention that believing there is no god is a form of religion. There is no creed, no priest, no book, no faith or required belief - you might as well say that silence is a form of speech or of music or that total dark is a form of pictorial art.
And when the followers of religion get upset with us they say that we are the ones being rude and inconsiderate. In my opinion it is usually they who are rude when our refusal to accept their beliefs gets their goat.
But I mustn't ally myself with other atheists. I've never met one I agree with completely (except Sylvia) and I will tar myself with their brush in your mind if I do that.
So please allow me to withdraw anything that implies I think I am part of an atheist group that have 'beliefs' in common.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you’ll notice I didn’t specifically say you said any thing venomous or vitriolic, I just happen to find those that espouse atheism a “doctrine” that there is no deity; tend in my view to be or act towards anyone who disagrees with their belief system, with those overtones i.e. “venomous, vitriolic.”
Meta I used as a denotation of change, my meaning being that there is very little knowledge that is immutable, sorry if I did indeed or in your opinion used the word improperly, It's just that I love change and I thought it would be fun to use a word in a way that evokes something. I was thinking manyly about metaphysics though i dont think that word covers all that is mutable. Any suggestions?
Anthony all I am doing is interpreting with the information I have, the picture you paint or seem to paint of your beliefs, but as we all should know such an interpretation is full of subjectivity.
As I said, life should not be a pissing contest but a journey of discovery. Hopefully with respect of others no matter how much you may not agree with there hypothesis. No matter what this is the most important thing. Forgive my inappropriate grammar.
I have to go for the MO, I'll have to return and check this later or most likely tomorrow.
Peace everybody :-*
[Updated on: Mon, 27 April 2009 20:27]
People will tell you where they've gone
They'll tell you where to go
But till you get there yourself you never really know
Where some have found their paradise
Other's just come to harm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dear arich, isn't it easy to get misunderstood? I knew that you hadn't pointed your finger at me and I didn't feel you had attacked me. You should have no worries about that.
When I am asked for my religion I say "None". I don't say "I believe there is no god". When the jehovahs witnesses come round I tell them they are wasting their time with me and only if they go on trying to engage me in conversation do I say I'm an atheist.
So, in effect I was saying that my sort of atheism isn't at all like a religion.
But I'm in serious disagreement with you about knowledge being liable to change. But to make a case for what I say I would need to distinguish between the conventional wisdom - what people in general in society believe - and knowledge that is 'secure'. By secure I mean that is established beyond reasonable doubt (and this begs the question about what IS a reasonable doubt).
So I'll give up the attempt to make a formal case and merely say that the sum of human knowledge has grown enormously and is now growing faster than it ever has. There are more true things established about more subjects than there ever have been before and more people can find this knowledge and use it than ever before.
Just look at the equipment on a typical good car and consider how much of it would have been impossible fifty years ago. Or an office or a radio station!
The world is changing BECAUSE of the growth of knowledge and knowledge is what is established to be true. The automatic transmission on my car works because of the knowledge that has gone into it.
Prayer doesn't work and never has but it has been believed in by people who've never put it to the test - perhaps they didn't want to!
I feel I'm talking round the subject instead of dealing with it direct. I'd better stop.
If you reply tell me if I have conveyed any sort of reasoning to you!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, Aussie, I have tried various things such as wearing a partly unrolled condom on the theory that as it is a mucous membrane it ought to be kept damp.
I haven't noticed what you suggest - an increase in sensitivity after a few weeks.
I'll talk more about this if you want - but I'd prefer to do it by email. Mine email address is open for anyone to use.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, Aussie, I had a look at the Man Hood site and it is quite interesting. I'm not quite convinced that it is never too late to try foreskin restoration.
I think that maybe it is too late when erectile dysfunction gets in the way of any ability to notice increases of sensitivity.
But I can bee wrong: have been before: no doubt will be again!
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
