Fanatical religious terrorist incident Colorado Springs.

[Jludo]

Not just him obviously. It seems any thread that can be bent in the direction of Christian bashing, is.

I'm talking about the Muslim God of the old testament.

 

[jamil]

Maybe god really did tell him to do those things. He does work in mysterious ways.

Do you just walk around this forum insulting people, mocking them, and attempting to inflame threads? Grow up or go elsewhere.

It's pure contempt. It's not just that he believes you're wrong. It's his duty to mock your wrongness. Or maybe he has faith in his fun at your expense.

 

[Jludo]

Do you just walk around this forum insulting people, mocking them, and attempting to inflame threads? Grow up or go elsewhere.

I apologize, I forget if I'm not attacking islam my rhetoric is inflammatory and insulting.

 

[Jludo]

He also called my McCarty for saying we were at war and just didn't know it

I am sorry for that one, I shouldn't attack people personally, my only point was that I believed you were fear mongering and vastly over stating a potential threat. The Soviets at least did/do have access to the button.

 

[hoosierdoc]

fair enough, and I apologize for spelling McCarthy wrong

 

[2A_Tom]

I think the attitude of reasonable ness is the most important thing. On the list I would be a 1. Which in PaulF's opinion makes me delusional. Paul seems to think he is a 7, which in his mind allows him to malign those of faith.

The difference in our perspectives is that my faith only allows me to encourage others to believe in the perfect love of God, Jesus Christ. If they rejest Christ I may not judge them for they have judged themselves unworthy of His love already.

I will sit down and explain the love of God to anyone who is open minded. Never as an argument but a polite conversation. The point is I have no authority to twist arms, Just a wonderful God who loves You more than you could ever understand.

Take Him or leave him, but don't say you don't believe until you know the whole story.

Thanks Fenway for opening the forum to POLITE religious conversation.

 

[PaulF]

No. By your definition, religious people are delusional if they're wrong. So why aren't you delusional if you're wrong?

Being delusional isn't simply believing in something is false. Was Einstein delusional with his theory of a static universe? No. He simply got it wrong. However he would have been delusional had he continued to believe in it after having been proven wrong. Delusion must contain some element of proof that makes the belief obviously wrong, yet the person still believes.

Some "believers", yes, I think you could say they're delusional. And Steve is indeed delusional, but just because he's Steve, not because he has faith in Jesus.

In my experience the most ardent atheists use terms like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, and the people willing to use that kind of language to describe people of faith are 100% sure of themselves. People who have that kind of contempt for other people are usually pretty sure of themselves, or they just like to insult people.



Why would someone who believes they can't know for certain, but assumes there is no god, use rhetoric like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, to describe people who believe? To me, that kind displays contempt for other people's heartfelt faith.

I call myself an agnostic, but I don't quite agree with the definition on Dawkin's rubric. As an agnostic I am most confident that in the absence of direct physical proof, God's existence or non-existence is unprovable. But I believe non-existence is most probable because, logically, there's no reason to believe any particular story of faith over another to explain the world, when workable natural explanations exist. When people ask me how the universe came into being, I am very comfortable saying I don't know, science's SWAG is good as any.

However, I am not confident enough to believe someone else's faith is absurd, unless they truly are delusional, that is, believing that something provably false is true.

Alright jamil, have you even read what I have written?

It was Steve that first brought up the concept of delusion in post 703. I went on to respond.

In post 753 I admitted, in concrete terms, that if Steve is correct about his god, then I would be the "delusional" one.

As far as my use of "absurd" goes...the idea that people will live forever is absurd to me. Everything that lives will die, there is no evidence to the contrary.

What are you on about man?

 

[PaulF]

I think the attitude of reasonable ness is the most important thing. On the list I would be a 1. Which in PaulF's opinion makes me delusional. Paul seems to think he is a 7, which in his mind allows him to malign those of faith.

The difference in our perspectives is that my faith only allows me to encourage others to believe in the perfect love of God, Jesus Christ. If they rejest Christ I may not judge them for they have judged themselves unworthy of His love already.

I will sit down and explain the love of God to anyone who is open minded. Never as an argument but a polite conversation. The point is I have no authority to twist arms, Just a wonderful God who loves You more than you could ever understand.

Take Him or leave him, but don't say you don't believe until you know the whole story.

Thanks Fenway for opening the forum to POLITE religious conversation.

I stated that I put myself at a 6 on Dawkins' scale, not a seven.

There is a difference (in my mind, at least) between "maligning people of faith" and pointing out the absurdities in the tenets of that person's beliefs. Am I wrong?

I have repeatedly stated that I could be wrong, that I am open to discussion, that I am not trying to attack anyone personally, that I respect other people's rights to practice their religions despite what I think about it...what am I doing wrong here? I'm starting to feel like I'm taking crazy pills here...

Religion is a contentious issue...I feel like I have been quite reasonable in my attempts to discuss my positions.

Am I just too close to this to see how much of a dick I'm being?

 

[chezuki]

 

[chezuki]

Am I just too close to this to see how much of a dick I'm being?

Are we allowed to answer this?

 

[PaulF]

Are we allowed to answer this?

Go for it.

 

[Birds Away]

Are we allowed to answer this?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

No. By your definition, religious people are delusional if they're wrong. So why aren't you delusional if you're wrong?

Being delusional isn't simply believing in something is false. Was Einstein delusional with his theory of a static universe? No. He simply got it wrong. However he would have been delusional had he continued to believe in it after having been proven wrong. Delusion must contain some element of proof that makes the belief obviously wrong, yet the person still believes.

Some "believers", yes, I think you could say they're delusional. And Steve is indeed delusional, but just because he's Steve, not because he has faith in Jesus.

In my experience the most ardent atheists use terms like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, and the people willing to use that kind of language to describe people of faith are 100% sure of themselves. People who have that kind of contempt for other people are usually pretty sure of themselves, or they just like to insult people.



Why would someone who believes they can't know for certain, but assumes there is no god, use rhetoric like delusional, fantasy, fairy tales, unicorns, mythical, absurd, to describe people who believe? To me, that kind displays contempt for other people's heartfelt faith.

I call myself an agnostic, but I don't quite agree with the definition on Dawkin's rubric. As an agnostic I am most confident that in the absence of direct physical proof, God's existence or non-existence is unprovable. But I believe non-existence is most probable because, logically, there's no reason to believe any particular story of faith over another to explain the world, when workable natural explanations exist. When people ask me how the universe came into being, I am very comfortable saying I don't know, science's SWAG is good as any.

However, I am not confident enough to believe someone else's faith is absurd, unless they truly are delusional, that is, believing that something provably false is true.

You highlight a very important distinction. You've often mentioned your lack of belief in any god, just as others have. However, I don't think I can think of a single time where, when discussing religions (at least Christian/Jewish religions), you've ever used any terms that would paint believers in a derogatory light as others do and have.

 

[Birds Away]

We can't afford to lose you, Chez. Please don't.

 

[chezuki]

But the bait looks so yummy!

 

[Birds Away]

Yes, it's designed to.

 

[Jludo]

Yes, it's designed to.

You guys don't think it's a genuine question?

 

[PaulF]

You guys don't think it's a genuine question?

I don't think they do. I think they assume I want to ban them for insulting me.

I really just want to make sure I don't step on people's toes, while being free to discuss topics that are important to me.

 

[churchmouse]

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

You highlight a very important distinction. You've often mentioned your lack of belief in any god, just as others have. However, I don't think I can think of a single time where, when discussing religions (at least Christian/Jewish religions), you've ever used any terms that would paint believers in a derogatory light as others do and have.

PaulF - your answer lies in GFGT's very thoughtful commentary to Jamil.

Jamil and I disagree on matters of religion - but I have not once felt that he regarded me in less than a good light because I chose to believe , and he didn't. On 95%+ of other matters, he and I would probably agree. I would like to think that I return the favor to him, and I view him as no less of a solid person - even if we may not agree on that issue.