When is it OK to ask a RW to change her religion for you

[Shadow]

I have a better idea...why don't YOU walk outside naked and perform your little experiment.  They'd arrest me but you could probably go unnoticed in Amsterdam...at least until your fur starts to grow...then someone might start to show some major interest!

Seriously Shadow, I don't know what to think about your post...you were kidding, right?

Not entirely. Just reacting to your post that the marvel of nature under circumstances does exactly what it is expected to do as far as evolution is concerned, and if you just provide changed circumstances nature does its work in adapting the creatures to fit them.

[Ronnie]

Look folks, Mendelyev makes a strong and valid point: 

No person was made better by his atheism.  Many have been made worse.  Countries where atheism has been adopted as official policy have been a disaster in every sense of the word.  Since the age of enlightenment, countries where people have been free to practice faith in a deity have chosen to do so and have reduced corruption and prospered tremendously. 

To believe that a living person or animal is nothing more than a blob of organic matter diminishes the significance of each individual.  Lenin saw human beings as numbers...exterminating 10% of his countrymen (as he proposed might be necessary) was not a moral issue for him, but one of mere politics.  The atheist not only discredits the divine entity who is responsible for his existence but he discredits every other human being and innocent creature as well.  We talked already about the upside/downside analysis.  I can see no upside to diminishing a human being's value, while the downside risk is potentially lethal. 

[Blues Fairy]

Equally odd is the your point that if a human was "crown Jewel of God's design" he should be able to grow gills or wings at will...."
Madam, I just don't follow you.

Sir, I thought you could discern sarcasm.  Apparently not.  I am sorry; won't do it again. 

If you wish (and apparently you do) to hold to your absolute "knowledge" that there is no creator, no intelligent designer, no God and that all living systems are the product of chance alone, you may do so as long as your heart desires it.  To me your conclusion seems imprudent and in defiance of reason and logic.

I was challenged to this debate and I respond as best I can; but nowhere did I claim to have absolute knowledge about anything; in fact, I try to avoid absolute categories where possible.  Besides, I don't really care that much.  You, however, seem to have taken it to heart to convert me and seem to be extremely disappointed with my views - to the point of lecturing me about my imprudence and lack of reason and logic.  That's hardly a method of intelligent debate, my dearest Sir.  If you wish to continue, I do urge you to show some respect to your opponents.

[Shadow]

Look folks, Mendelyev makes a strong and valid point: 

No person was made better by his atheism.  Many have been made worse.  Countries where atheism has been adopted as official policy have been a disaster in every sense of the word.  Since the age of enlightenment, countries where people have been free to practice faith in a deity have chosen to do so and have reduced corruption and prospered tremendously. 

To believe that a living person or animal is nothing more than a blob of organic matter diminishes the significance of each individual.  Lenin saw human beings as numbers...exterminating 10% of his countrymen (as he proposed might be necessary) was not a moral issue for him, but one of mere politics.  The atheist not only discredits the divine entity who is responsible for his existence but he discredits every other human being and innocent creature as well.  We talked already about the upside/downside analysis.  I can see no upside to diminishing a human being's value, while the downside risk is potentially lethal. 

Look how many wars have been started in the name of religion. Look how much fear religion has caused. Look how much injustice.
If only people would let others free to believe whatever they want in the way they want it the world would be a better place.
People are not made better by religion, people are not worse for being atheist. It is when they are forced to defend their belief 'or else' that trouble starts.
If you wish to believe in a divine creator, which ever creator, and that gives you peace in your heart and soul, you have my respect.
My peace comes from not knowing the answers. I do not need to know.
I do support certain theories that are logical in the view of what surrounds us and do not require a lot of intervention. We see the theories in effect every day on small scale. We do not see a lot of divine intervention every day.

[BC]

Around 14 billion years ago all was one and one was all... so God, Gods, or No Gods along with everyone else was present.  In one, a hundred, a thousand or a million years, or even many billion years, the questions being pondered here will resolve themselves - probably with contact from intelligent beings that may or may not be out there.

For me, I'm not going to worry about it until such a time and consider all this an earthly problem, nothing more, nothing less.

Best just to do whatever fits you best and not meddle with whatever someone else thinks about the subject.

If you have a relationship with some higher power then great, use that relationship for your own personal growth.. Best to talk to him/her/it/whatever about it as the answers will only be found there.

[SANDRO43]

Although he had spent several years questioning the religious faith instilled from his mother, it was only after meeting Lenin, an athiest, did he (Josef 'Stalin') finally decide to jettison entirely all of his religious upbringing.  Perhaps from that we could conclude that it is the effect of athiests on religious people who turn them into evil monsters?!  (I don't believe that--but it makes as much sense as the original assertion.)

Newly-converted people often show a marked tendency to fanaticism. As I said upthread, I suspect that Stalin's reasons for embracing atheism may have been more political (aping Lenin), and promoting it mostly based on power/control considerations. Robespierre believed in Deism (cult of the Supreme Being), persecuted atheists and unleashed a 'Terror' similar to Stalin's purges.

As for the idea that all the evil people who made history came from religious backgrounds, I'm not ready to entertain something so outrageous until you've done a complete study of all evil people in history, tallied them up in two columns (religious versus non-religious) and then come back with a scientific and rational aSSessment. I can think of quite a handful who had no 'strong religious background' and were very evil and made history for it.

It'd be quite interesting. However, I'd say that 'non-religious' and 'no strong religious background' are not quite the same thing .

[Blues Fairy]

To believe that a living person or animal is nothing more than a blob of organic matter diminishes the significance of each individual. 

The atheist not only discredits the divine entity who is responsible for his existence but he discredits every other human being and innocent creature as well. 

Believe it or not, but most of my fellow creatures and human beings do not seem to protest against being so "discredited".  I personally don't feel discredited by having 98.4% of my DNA identical to chimps.  As for those who do protest, I always detect in them something of a deep complex of inferiority and fear, which needs to be compensated through claiming a link to a divine entity. 

[Eduard]

Look how many wars have been started in the name of religion. Look how much fear religion has caused. Look how much injustice.
If only people would let others free to believe whatever they want in the way they want it the world would be a better place.
People are not made better by religion, people are not worse for being atheist. It is when they are forced to defend their belief 'or else' that trouble starts.
If you wish to believe in a divine creator, which ever creator, and that gives you peace in your heart and soul, you have my respect.
My peace comes from not knowing the answers. I do not need to know.
I do support certain theories that are logical in the view of what surrounds us and do not require a lot of intervention. We see the theories in effect every day on small scale. We do not see a lot of divine intervention every day.

very well put Shadow!

[Eduard]

Believe it or not, but most of my fellow creatures and human beings do not seem to protest against being so "discredited".  I personally don't feel discredited by having 98.4% of my DNA identical to chimps.  As for those who do protest, I always detect in them something of a deep complex of inferiority and fear, which needs to be compensated through claiming a link to a divine entity. 

Very good point BF!!!
I'm also very turned off by religious fanatics'  disgust of being related to the great apes and other animals. I think all the living things in nature are connected and we should celebrate it rather than show your inferiority complex and be outraged by a possibility of such connection.
I've always had pets and fish since i was little and if you like to observe their behavior (fish too) you can see that they are not that different from us. We share all their instincts, behavior and emotions. Obviously we have a bigger brain, power of speech, etc. that puts us on a different intellectual level but all the basics are so familiar when you observe angel fish breed and raise their children! the children act just like my daughter! It's amazing to watch., There are a lot more similarities than differences.

[BC]

We share all their instincts, behavior and emotions. Obviously we have a bigger brain, power of speech, etc. that puts us on a different intellectual level but all the basics are so familiar when you observe angel fish breed and raise their children! the children act just like my daughter! It's amazing to watch., There are a lot more similarities than differences.

Since this thread is so wildly off topic....

This is one aspect I have wondered about, that the power of this bigger brain, succeeding to provide physical security without use of instinct has eroded these 'hardwired' abilities dramatically.. with the negative result often see around here when folks often disregard their instinct entirely.  Put man and monkey in a jungle and see who is most confused and helpless..

[Eduard]

Since this thread is so wildly off topic....

This is one aspect I have wondered about, that the power of this bigger brain, succeeding to provide physical security without use of instinct has eroded these 'hardwired' abilities dramatically.. with the negative result often see around here when folks often disregard their instinct entirely.  Put man and monkey in a jungle and see who is most confused and helpless..

put men in the jungle...some will perish and others will adopt, survive, learn and propagate spreading their genes...what's that called? Survival of the fittest?  aaaaa Evolution

[Eduard]

Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, after 3 weeks of "small talk" my client is getting into serious discussions about family, marriage and children with this one particular girl. He is going to lay it all on the line in the next letter so stay tuned! Will update you very soon if anyone still interested?!?!?!?!

PS. sorry to change the subject!

[BC]

Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, after 3 weeks of "small talk" my client is getting into serious discussions about family, marriage and children with this one particular girl. He is going to lay it all on the line in the next letter so stay tuned! Will update you very soon if anyone still interested?!?!?!?!

PS. sorry to change the subject!

Next letter???? you gotta be kidding...

[mendeleyev]

OK, I was wrong...I guess Stalin was no exception and also had a strong religious background..

You are going to put that list together, remember?      Even an 'experienced' guy like yourself might well learn something if you do.

[Catman]

Ed, I'm interested in your clients progress. Write on!

[Shadow]

Back on topic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
well, after 3 weeks of "small talk" my client is getting into serious discussions about family, marriage and children with this one particular girl. He is going to lay it all on the line in the next letter so stay tuned! Will update you very soon if anyone still interested?!?!?!?!

PS. sorry to change the subject!

Don't spoil the fun with on-topic talk. 

[Ronnie]

One of the points that atheist fanatics here avoid addressing is the question about what fruits has atheism born?  We hear about wars in the name of religion and the point if well taken, but why avoid discussing the great evils brought into the lives of innocent people by godless leaders?  The greatest example of atheists at the helm of government is the USSR...how'd that work out?

I got an email today I thought I share here concerning a new film that opens next week..

Stand up for Academic Freedom and see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed in theaters nationwide on FREEDOM FRIDAY - April 18th.

EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed, starring Ben Stein, follows his journey around the globe where he discovers that scientists, educators and philosophers are being persecuted in a modern day witch hunt because they dare to go against the theory of evolution. These pillars of education are being fired, ridiculed and ostracized for merely challenging Darwin's theory; proposing that life on this planet could be a part of some intelligent design and not random chance.

This thought-provoking film not only forces us to question what we have been taught but challenges us to ask, “What else is being kept from us?”

[Eduard]

One of the points that atheist fanatics here avoid addressing is the question about what fruits has atheism born? 
[/b]

Atheist fanatics??? come on Ronnie. If you read back I actually complimented your first post on this thread because I found it well written and it presented your point of view quite eloquently. Fine. We are all entitled to one. This is what's great about this country.
But now you are starting to sound like a fanatic. Just because people don't subscribe to your views doesn't make them fanatics or bad. This post of your's makes me sad.

[Ronnie]

I used the term pointedly....trying to be evenhanded, Eduard.  If religious folks can be called fanatics because they adhere strongly to their faith, why can't the same term be applied to those who profess to have no doubts as the the nonexistence of God?

The reason people don't like the term is because it connotes mindless following of others and, of course atheists like to think of themselves as free thinkers and in the words of the Geico caveman... "shmart"

Atheists are often found announcing weakmindedness in others as if their views were somehow less mindless.  If religion is a crutch for some, so be it.  Religion does not, by definition, necessitate a belief in God.  Therefore, atheism is as much a religion as any other.

[Ronnie]

We do not see a lot of divine intervention every day.

This one sentence sums up the debate.  Some see it...some don't.  What more can be said?

[Simoni]

Stand up for Academic Freedom and see EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed

I have studied the junk science the "Intelligent Design" people are trying to pawn off.  It's terrible.   Thus, the statement above is an oxymoron.   For you see, there is no intelligence in "Intelligent Design."

As a believer, I'm upset when such groups make believers look stupid.   In reality, God created species to change and evolve.  So it is His plan at work, and groups like the one above are in fact challenging God.

[Blues Fairy]

Religion does not, by definition, necessitate a belief in God.  Therefore, atheism is as much a religion as any other.

Another brilliant piece of logic from our evenhanded preacher. 

[Ronnie]

It seems BF has a narrow interpretation of the word "Religion"  The word itself is incredibly broad.  From the Latin religare meaning to tie or bind, religion can include anything to which a person ties his/her beliefs to. 

I have studied the junk science the "Intelligent Design" people are trying to pawn off.  It's terrible.   Thus, the statement above is an oxymoron.   For you see, there is no intelligence in "Intelligent Design."

As a believer, I'm upset when such groups make believers look stupid.   In reality, God created species to change and evolve.  So it is His plan at work, and groups like the one above are in fact challenging God.

You baffle me Simoni..


http://www.expelledthemovie.com/playground.php

[mendeleyev]

Out of nothing, there was a big bang.  Out of nothing.  Right, I'm susposed to believe that nothing evolved to the point where it had the necessary chemical properties to create an explosion.  And that explosion led to the beginning of intelligent life!   

Where is that bottle of Vodka?!

[Ronnie]

Renown antitheist Richard Dawkins admits that evolution has not been observed "while it's happening"  only after the fact.  He equates it to a forensic team showing up at the scene of a murder and finding abundant clues so that they can reasonably reconstruct what happened.

Oh?  Then tell me then what happened a mere 100 years ago in Tunguska, Russia.  Scientific teams have visited the site, interviewed scores of witnesses, taken soil samples, examined the abundance of evidence and have come up with no less that 6 theories as to what took place.  Yet, we are supposed to ban from our schools all theories about the origin of life save one. 

The Council of Europe has labeled alternative theories as too "dangerous" to be taught in schools, and yes, they want a law forbidding alternative theories.  Apparently, socialist parents don't want their children to hear divergent views or decide for themselves, or rather, the socialist government of Europe wants to control such decision...so much for free thinking. 

When the Tunguska event in taught in schools, each theory about what happened may be discussed.  Yet when something that happened so much farther in the distant past is taught, and about which there is less incontrovertible evidence, only one theory need be presented?  Do they teach that evolutionists don't agree with each other?  Do they discuss the "Darwin wars" between the various schools of thought?  I doubt it.  It seems to me that this antitheism controversy has less to do truth-seeking science and more to do with political ideology. 

How much is said in schools about the role Darwinism played in the NAZI holocaust?  Hitler and German academics were enthralled by Darwinian theories of evolution and in particular the law of natural selection.   

A bright doctor, Josef Mengele was caught up in the NAZI/Darwinian convergence.  He held comtempt for Catholicism and religion in general.   Human beings, be they twins, homosexuals, Jew, Slavs or gypsies had no value to him except as material for his experiments.  He viewed them as genetically inferior beings who should not be permitted to breed.  To Mengele, Hitler and German scientists of the day, the solution, the final solution, was genocide.  So, it was not only Jews who were exterminated in the name of genetic purity, but Slavic (soviet) POWs, gypsies, physically disabled, homosexuals, children with cleft palates, Down's syndrome or autism..in all, some 11 - 12 million human beings eradicated in the name of accelerating the law of natural selection.
 
Were the NAZI an aberration?  Not exactly.  Soviet Russia, Communist China, Cambodia, Laos found it in the governments best interest to engage in genocide to purify or purge the population.

Are today's advocates of atheism far removed from such mentality?  You read the political musings of genetic Darwinist and antitheist Richard Dawkins:
 My American friends, you know I love your country, how have we come to this? Yes, yes, Bush isn't quite as stupid as he sounds, and heaven knows he can't be as stupid as he looks. I know most of you didn't vote for him anyway, but that is my point. Forgive my presumption, but could it just be that there is something a teeny bit wrong with that famous constitution of yours?    Dawkins believes that people he considers less "shmart" should be prevented from holding high office.  Dawkins would have precluded as unfit most of America's great presidents from Washington to Lincoln, TR to RR.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/mar/22/iraq.usa

The upcoming Ben Stein film is sure to be entertaining and hopefully will even provoke discussion that so far, has been squelched.

Since I mentioned Stein and Dawkins, let me point out that Dawkins did not graduate with honors from Balliol College Oxford...he merely graduated.  The other noted antitheist, Christopher Hitchens, graduated near the bottom of his class at Oxford's Balliol College.  Yet these are the champions of antitheism.

I forgot to mention that Ben Stein, while known as an entertainer is also an adjunct law professor.  Stein not only graduated from Yale Law School but was Valedictorian an honor that goes to the highest academic achiever in the entire class.  Of course, to Blues Fairy, he's just another weak-minded preacher.  Tell me again who is being deluded.