|
|
Since the moderator has locked the original thread I shall have to post my clarifications here in a new thread. I am not doing so in a fit of childish oneupmanship but simply in order to clarify where I am coming from and where I am.
Anthony wrote:
I'm sorry if I have offended you
You have not offended me.
but I really don't think my stance on existence/non-existence of god is any more extreme than yours or any priest's.
Well, I can't speak for "any priest", but you cannot know my stance on this subject because I have never referred to it.
I suppose it is a weakness to be willing to assert what one cannot prove,
We are in agreement on that.
but I'm not alone, you know. I don't see it as more foolish to deny a statement that is beyond proof that it would be to assert it.
But, Anthony, in the original thread no one here made any assertion about any deity. It was you who asserted the negative.
I suspect I'm greatly outnumbered by the people that assert the unproveable and that a great many people who might support me are dissuaded from doing so by the pressure of a society where priests and churches still have a considerable influence.
I agree that is is just as foolish to assert what is unproveable as it is to deny it. It is perfectly in order to state a belief or an opinion; to make an assertion is rather foolish.
And when they make their assertions (and they do - like my friend who says every word in the bible is true and that, by the way I will be going to hell!) it seems to me that my refusal to believe is no more extreme than their injunctions to pray and that saying 'there is no god' is no stronger a contradiction of their position than theirs is of my position.
Anthony, I would imagine that religion creates more nut cases than any other human activity. To me there is nothing more obnoxious than a born-again fanatic spouting religious nonsense as if he or she had just had a personal interview with " the source of all truth" - or whatever they want to call their god today. But that does not mean either that all religious people are nut cases or that if I am religious I have to act as foolishly as they do. The same applies, in my book, to the atheist: just because some/most religious people are infuriating nut cases does not mean that the atheist must act like one too. (There is no god and Richard Dawkins is his prophet.)
If they have a right to their belief then, presumably I have a right to mine.
Most assuredly. I did not question your right to your opinion. You did not express an opinion, but asserted that which cannot truly be asserted.
I believe that prosyletism is not part of the jewish faith, so perhaps I should be careful to avoid 'antiproselytism' when conversing with jews,
Just to clarify: Jews do not go round trying to persuade people of other faiths (or no faith) to become Jews. But if someone of their own accord seeks to become a Jew the road to conversion is always open. It is not an easy road, by the way.
but that is unusual and this place [Bristol - or indeed England!] is full of people who knock on my door and try to convert me.
I commiserate. When I lived in England - aeons ago - I once kept a Jehovah's witness on my doorstep for four and a half hours in argument. Never again did any such "door to door salesman" dare to knock at my door to sell his pernicious wares!
Hugs,
J F R
The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
