OK - and let me make it clear that I do not support the teaching of religious theories in science class - but in relation to a person's religious beliefs - Tanya Dee stated:

"I can't find anything to respect in religious belief." and thats fine, however does one apply the same view to other areas of deeply personal held beliefs and values?

The reason I used the motherhood example is because it is very very important to many women. I have known women who - due to medical emergency required a caesarian, and were so distressed by this they required counselling, and I've known other women who take a very dim view of breastfeeding - and could not imagine doing it no matter what the incentive.

Do we respect the rights of others to hold the views they do, and to make deeply personal choices about an area as important as childbirth?

Do we display a lack of respect for those whose views differ from ours?

There are sound reasons why religious theories should not be taught in the science classroom (any more than unproven "new age" philosophies should be taught in ante natal classes) - but a lack of respect for people's views is not one of them.

Both should be sticking to facts - or if the issue discussed is "theoretical" evidence provided as to why that theory is accepted by those in the field.

TanyDee also said this:



In this statement I find the same fundamentalist one eyed approach I have seen in the less desirable perspectives various religious persuasions.

In what way does belief in God earn such a lack of respect?


also i response to a post by Good Doctor:
and this is again an example of an extremely one eyed approach displaying a lack of respect. My children have always been exposed to wacky beliefs (not always religious). Its part of life - its part of living in a pluralistic society, and if you are going to go out in the world and visit other countries you'll get even more of it. IF people tell your children things that YOU disagree with, you don't have to turn a blind eye - but you have to be pretty sure about why you believe what you do ... and it helps to also understand that people have many reasons for believing the things that they do. You can do this without disrespecting other people's beliefs.



Also:

it is quite possible to be honest without being rude.

Heya,

The belief in god is a singular delusion that most people share despite a simple fact. There is absolutely no evidence to support that conclusion. To believe in something so contrary to reality colors your every other perception. I cannot respect someone who insist on believing something that does not exist. Despite modern philosophies to the contrary, multiculturalism and pluralism are not okay in everything. Somethings are just wrong and the fact that some cultures and religions think they are okay does not change that fact.

I know I hold a very unpopular opinion - There is no god. Just because most other people believe the opposite doesn't change that fact. The appeal to common practice is in full force here.

I work very hard to make sure that I know why I believe what I believe. Critical thinking skills must be applied as fully to internal matters as they are external matters. For example, people are always telling my children ghost stories and make sure to tell the children that ghost aren't real and that there is no evidence that they exist.

Love and Kisses,
Dee

PS. There is no invisible, intangible, incorporeal teapot.

PSS.

__________________

If you are unsure where to go, incapable of normal speech, or unable to remember why you are here, our Welcome Witch will be pleased to help.

Heya,

I would only become rude if they didn't listen. There is no need of uncivil actions but there is no need to listen to something you don't believe in just to be polite either.

Love and Kisses,
Dee

__________________

If you are unsure where to go, incapable of normal speech, or unable to remember why you are here, our Welcome Witch will be pleased to help.

I personally am a card carrying secular humanist & agnostic, but I find your concrete declaration that "there is no God" to be every bit as presumtuous as the true believers' insistance that there most definitely is.

Neither of you know for sure, yet speak as if you do.

It's just a matter of belief on both sides. None of us has ever died & come back to life & been able to definitively report on what lies beyond. For all we know, there might be another dimension invisible to we here in this one, in which God exisits. It's never constructive to be overly sure of one's knowledge or beliefs when it comes to something in which no concrete knowledge exists.

Heya,


The difference between being an agnostic and an atheist.

As for knowledge. There is far more concrete evidence toward the non-existence of god than there is evidence towards the existence of.

As for dying. I've been dead (drowning). No white light. No voices talking. Nothing.

Love and Kisses,
Dee

__________________

If you are unsure where to go, incapable of normal speech, or unable to remember why you are here, our Welcome Witch will be pleased to help.

Interesting (in the odd and peculiar sense) point of view.

__________________
I am an American. That's the way most of us put it, just matter of factly. They are plain words, those four: you could write them on your thumbnail, or sweep them clear across this bright autumn sky. But remember too, that they are more than just words. They are a way of life. So whenever you speak them; speak them firmly, speak them proudly, speak them gratefully. I am an American. ...a tradition

Maybe you weren't "dead enough". Maybe some people don't experience those things prior to arriving at wherever it is we may or may not go after dying.

Or maybe you're 100% right & there really is nothing.

You still don't really "know".

I'd like to know what concrete evidence there is that points towards the non-existence of God.

And once again, it's all just belief. Atheism is every bit as much a belief as Agnosticism & Christianity.

Heya,

This is where the whole things starts to fall apart for the believer. "Perhaps," I wasn't dead enough. The evidence I have for the non-existence of god just isn't good enough because the believer won't accept the evidence.

Say what, old chap. You were only dead for twenty minutes. Well that is hardly enough time to find out if there were a god. Why? Because you didn't come back and say there was a god.

Say what, old chap. You were only dead for two hours. Well that is hardly enough time to find out if there were a god. Why? Because you didn't come back and say there was a god.

Say what, old chap. You were only dead for two days. Well that is hardly enough time to find out if there were a god. Why? Because you didn't come back and say there was a god.

Say what, old chap. You were only dead for twenty minutes. Well that is hardly enough time to find out if there were a god. Why? Because you didn't come back and say there was a god.

Say what, old chap. You were frozen in the ice for 20 years and were brought back by a miracle of science. Well that is hardly enough time to find out if there were a god. Why? Because you didn't come back and say there was a god.

Sadly, it reminds me of the story about the researcher into the efficacy of prayer. When asked what would happen if the research came back to categorically deny the helpful benefits of people praying for you his reply was that the test must be wrong. No matter the amounts of data that come back the believer must not believe any evidence that contradicts the existence of god.

The absolute lack of necessity for its existence. The miserable lack of anything remotely justifying the idea that something is in charge. The state of the world, and the actions of people within, show that if god exist then he must be either sadistic or apathetic because I don't see any reason that the children of Africa have to die slowly and painfully from starvation and disease.

Once again, the believer seeks to turn the onus of proof on the disbeliever when the real necessity is on the believer to provide proof. I have used it before but you really must do some research into Russell's Teapot.

Others have written responses to this fallacy. You can read a good one here - Is Atheism a Belief?

Love and Kisses,
Dee

__________________

If you are unsure where to go, incapable of normal speech, or unable to remember why you are here, our Welcome Witch will be pleased to help.

ok. Now, I don't believe in God - and in fact I will say that to me - it seems highly unlikely that God exists. I certainly will say that biblical (or other) religious tales can not be seen as literal transcriptions of real events, and if anyone tells me they are, its not hard to provide reasons why these stroies can not be taken literally.

However - despite my beliefs - I have no evidence that God (in some form) doesn't exist. And so I can't say that those who believe in God are delusional.

I can ask them why their God might be the real God, and I might be able to point out discrepancies in their presentation f their God, but I can't prove that a beielf in God is delusional.

In any case, I've seen far too many people for whom belief in God has been a positive thing for me to even want to.

where is your proof that God does not exist?

why not?

[quote]Somethings are just wrong[/qupote] yes - but hw do you know belief in God is wrong?

there are definitely some "wrong" beliefs in many fields - and plenty in religion if we take literal meanings from texts. And using religion to interpret issues of right/wrong can be tricky in a different world - without going into more complex morality - simply looking at God's edict to "go forth and multiply" just doesn't make much sense in an already overpopluated world. Although 2,000 + years ago it would have been quite reasonable.

again - where is your proof?

where is your evidence it is "fact"

I agree.

And while to my mind it is more than extremely unlikely there is a God, I have no proof - and I cannot claim someone who believes otherwise is delusional.

why become rude at all?

everybody is entitled to their opinion. you can always agree to disagree.

easy: an agnostic knows what they don't know. An atheist is certain of that which can't be known.

In this regard, an etheist and a believer usually have far more in common.

yeah - but where is the data that proves that God doesn't exist?


There are a lot of unnecessary things in this world - being unnecessary is not proof that something doesn't exist.

OK - I'm with you on this one - this is why I stopped believing in God. But you know - it still doesn't prove that God doesn't exist. It doesn't even really prove that a biblical God doesn't exist - although it is difficult to reconcile with the idea of a "loving God", and I for one can't.

I still feel that if you state categorically "there is no God" , then I feel the onus is on you to prove there is no God. Equally - if you choose to argue "God exists" the onus is on you to prove this.

I know that I can't prove either way - so I cannot in all honesty say God exists, or God doesn't exist. My money would be on non existence - but I'm not 100% sure. If God does exist, then I can't imagine He's so petty as to hold it against me that I can't commit to belief in Him (or Her or It)..

Would you care to present the "concrete evidence" of the non-existence of God? I'm willing to bet you can't just as I can't prove to you that He does exist. Those of us that believe accept it on faith that He is real and we see evidence of Him everyday but a non-believer can't see it for lack of faith. The believer will accept that God healed a person with a tumor prior to surgery (that happened to a friend of mine). The non-believer will search for other explanations though even the doctors called it a miracle. The believer will pray to God for something and when it happens, we thank Him for answering our prayers. The non-believer will call it a coincidence. The believer will look at the complexity of the universe and accept that no matter how it happened, God created it all. The non-believer accepts that "it just happened" through the "big bang theory" or whatever.
Neither the non-believers nor the believers can be proven wrong so the best thing to do is be polite and not state emphatically that someone is wrong in their beliefs.
As for the "white lights", some see them, some don't. When my late husband and I were dating in 1987, he died on the operating table and though he didn't see "white lights", he did see two men and one spoke to him, telling him that it wasn't time because he still had things to do on earth and proceeded to tell him what those things were. My husband never shared the specifics with me (he said that the information wasn't meant to be shared) but he married me that year and raised my two children who were 4 and 6 at the time. We were married for a little over 19 years and in all that time, his story about his experience never changed a bit and everyone that knew him admired his honesty and integrity so I've never doubted that what he said was the truth. (BTW, my personal belief is that God wanted him to be my husband and the father to my children that my ex-husband refused to be.)

__________________


"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways - Chardonnay in one hand - chocolate in the other - body thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and screaming "WOO HOO, What a Ride!"

The evidence you have barely qualifies as evidence. Just because you were supposedly dead for a few minutes & didn't see a light or a tunnel is proof of nothing. And what proof do you have that you really were dead as you say you were?

No, that's not why. It's because there is no way to know why old chap didn't see something. He may have seen it but doesn't remember it. Again, neither you nor I know.

Never happened.

Never happened.

Never happened.

There is no comparison between that & what we're talking about. I'm not asking you to prove anything. As a matter of fact I'm saying that neither you nor I CAN prove anything. I'm not saying that you are wrong. As a matter of fact I've already stated that you may be right. Neither of us knows.

None of that qualifies as concrete evidence. Evidence, yes. Concrete evidence, no. One could make the argument that God let's things happen a certain way for a larger reason that we don't understand.

I would say just the opposite. You are the one who seeks to turn the onus of proof on the believer when it's just as necessary for you to provide proof of your position as it is for them to provide proof of theirs.... which is to say there really is no onus of proof on EITHER side, given that both positions are mere beliefs. Once both sides admit that niether of them know anything, the onus of proof evaporates.