Religion
Related: About this forumViva_Daddy
(785 posts)pinto
(106,886 posts)Thanks for the post.
rug
(82,333 posts)- Craig Ferguson
pinto
(106,886 posts)was a drummer in the Dublin Fusiliers, a British regiment. He had to change out of uniform to court my great grandmother in an IRA household. Yet they married. Were transferred to Halifax during WWI, where my grandmother met my grandfather, a US navy seaman.
They married and settled back in my grandfather's home town in New England.
While strongly holding an Irish nationalist point of view, she appreciated the irony of it all. And allowed some doubt to it all.
True Scotsman
cbayer
(146,218 posts)Just now, there are three men trying to fix my generator. They each approached the problem thinking they had the answer, but each doubted the other. They congenially and cooperatively explored the doubt of each one until they reached a conclusion.
Now, mind you, they may still be wrong, but they have learned what the problem isn't and seem closer to knowing what it is.
pinto
(106,886 posts)cbayer
(146,218 posts)one overcast day and we are going to really need that generator.
Viva_Daddy
(785 posts)"It's not what you don't know that causes problems. It's what you think you know that ain't so."
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)without a heavy dose of doubt is bound to fall into fundamentalism. And fundamentalism is always a open sore on the body of any culture.
edhopper
(33,606 posts)That is why I come to forums like this to hear arguments counter to my atheism. I cannot continue to state my beliefs (or nonbeliefs) with any conviction if I cannot say I have heard the other side of the questions. That I haven't seen a viable argument against atheism does not mean I should not keep listening
pinto
(106,886 posts)My point is that doubt, in general, is a simply basic thing.
edhopper
(33,606 posts)debates.
And there is also those posters who simply write in why they believe. It all helps me look at my stance in a rational critical way. Sort of peer review.
Anyway I was responding to TMO, so who asked you what you think? (joking)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)here and far beyond here, who are open to dialogue, as you are. We continue to learn from each other. And then there are others who I have not recently and will never engage in conversation.
But edhopper, my purpose here is not to give arguments counter to atheism, yours or anyonelses. My task is to offer testimony to what I find that religion has done and is doing for good in this world, realizing full well that today and in every time religion has done terrible things. This, however is not an argument either for or against atheism.
Keep the conversation going. I'm interested in what you think.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)being condescending, can you? Despite everything you say and claim to want here? Who the fuck gave YOU the right to decide who the "solid" atheists are?
edhopper
(33,606 posts)"the other point of view". Your reasons for believing in God are arguments against my atheism. Not that you are arguing with me.
We are getting into squishy language.
If I have rationally thought out why I don't think God exists I owe it to myself to hear why others think he does. Hence the 'argument' for.
So I do mean two sides of the conversation. And on this I am thinking about informing my own opinion and not trying to win a debate or convince some one else (though there are threads when that is true)
Thats my opinion
(2,001 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)skepticscott
(13,029 posts)have convictions which they hold as being their unshakeable and unquestionable core, expressed and held without any doubt whatsoever. You know this perfectly well, Charles, and even if you didn't, a few minutes of Internet research would provide all the evidence you need. Would you like to be honest and provide the examples, or should I? Or will you just pull your usual disappearing act after dumping a truckload of manure?
Why are you paying this phony lip service to "doubt", other than that it is perceived as a requirement by all people of "deep and abiding faith", so that they'll look reasonable and rational to everyone else?
pinto
(106,886 posts)And don't want to fuel any more of it, to be honest. So I'll leave it at knock it off, please. Thanks.
skepticscott
(13,029 posts)Is the first sentence of my post true? Yes or no? Does the OP contradict it, and should the OP have known that? Do many "liberal" and "progressive" denominations that are NOT "fundamentalist" still qualify under his definition?
The point, since you ask, is that this poster regularly and enthusiastically puts up blatant, egregious falsehoods, knowing them to be false, and then has a snit when everyone doesn't fall on their knees and swallow them and his agenda whole. He refuses to engage in any meaningful discussion of the points that are raised, preferring instead to either put his fingers in his ears, or to whine about "personal attack", "harassment", and "bullying".
So what do YOU think is the appropriate response to someone who keeps posting things that are manifestly untrue, especially when they know or should know that they are? Maybe you should be telling HIM to knock it off, yes?
dimbear
(6,271 posts)William Blake, Christian mystic poet, proposes an interesting scientific test.