|
|
|
|
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)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you JFR. As I'm quite careful in my use of words I was surprised to see you say that no-one made any assertion about a deity. I had to go back and look.
I was replying to ChrisJames and began my reply 'Dear ChrisJames' as I usually want everyone to know which post I'm replying to. I don't usually respond to a whole thread because I'd have to write an essay each time and that's boring.
But his post ended with the sentence: "There is no God in America, but we do seem to have a monopoly on evil." I don't think that I was too far out of court to say, in response, there is no god period. It was only to extend his remark to some fairly unimportant other land masses & bits of the universe. (Please don't take offence ChrisJames!)
The question whether it is more proper to deny an unproveable than to assert it interests me because I see the question as far from evenly balanced.
The imbalance is important; just as it is important to avoid saying 'Do as you would be done by' and instead say 'Avoid doing to others what you would not want them to do to you'. Karl Popper solved Hume's problem of induction by pointing out that what's important about 'All swans are white' is that it becomes a challenge to find a swan of another colour and if no-one can rise to the challenge then THAT (not the multitude of white swans) is a good reason to adopt the proposition as a working hypothesis.
If I say 'There is no green unicorn sitting on the rim of my wine glass' that may not prove my sobriety but it is far more acceptable to most people than the contrary assertion. I admit that I have few people but William of Occam to support me in this.
And now you have made me write an essay in response. Sorry to be so boring - but at least (I hope) I haven't been rude.
Love,
Anthony
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never fear, Anthony, I am the least offended in all of this. In fact I mention you in a loving, if not absurd, fasion in my post on God and poker games. Hugs to you. 
Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
|
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
|
] 
A Place of Safety
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
