The pope. Popeing about.

[Castiel]

Part of the problem though is that the Danish Cartoons, the Draw Mohammed Day and, to a lesser extent, the Burn a Koran Day are actually reactions to Islamic pressure on either Free Speech or precieved pressure on another religion. It wasn't something done in isolation just to "rile them up". Obviously some people took the opportunity to do just that, but it shouldn't be needed because the events themselves shouldn't be needed.

Burn the Koran Day was done simply to garner a reaction, there was no pre-received insult from Islam on anyone except the misinformation about 9/11 and who was responsible.

The Danish Cartoons were somewhat different in that they were an attempt (allegedly) to bring attention to self-censorship and freedom of expression, the artists saying that we see humorous and critical cartoons of other religions. I cannot help but wonder what the reaction would have been if the cartoons had depicted Jews killing Christ in various humorous ways or the Pope standing gloating over graves of holocaust victims (as is the latest Dawkins claim).

Interestingly there is some debate over whether depicting Mohammed is offensive to Islam or it's followers at all as the Qu'ran doesn't explicitly forbid it and Mohammed has been depicted in various ways within Islamic culture for centuries, the edict seem to be something that is fairly recent in Islamic culture.

 

[Castiel]

Where did I ever say I was rude or mocked them?

The point is I would never dream of knocking on someone's door to discuss my religion, it is offensive.

erm...you replied to this:

Why react at all. If you find them a little nuts or can't understand or comprehend them simply ignore it and move on, instead of saying "I know I don't get it, but lets rile them up a little to see what happens!"

with this:

It isn't that easy when they knock on your door.

so the implication is obvious.

If discussing your religion or beliefs is offensive, why are you participating in a debate that does just that.

 

[Castiel]

I quite like the JWs turning up, especially when the come around at Halloween. They really need to start sending people out that have a bit more of a clue of the origins of Halloween and of their own religion...

I bet you can imagine the look on their faces when they leave my house after discussing belief, religion and the essence of God for an hour.

My wife tries to get to the door first to warn them off.....

 

[Castiel]

Well I do ignore them, but if there's a discussion going on... I'll gladly put my 2c in

As is your right regardless of what some might think. As long as that discussion is conducted in a mutually respectful way then there should never be any problem.

 

[mrk]

I just saw this on someone's facebook status. been posted yet?

Pope Benedict anagram = Epic Bent Pedo


Ouch ¬_¬

 

[Danthus]

so the implication is obvious.

If discussing your religion or beliefs is offensive, why are you participating in a debate that does just that.

The implication is not obvious at all, you have taken what I have said and added your slant to it.

I chose to engage in this thread, I have not mocked anyone, when someone knocks on my door to discuss their religion my choice to engage was partially removed.

 

[Castiel]

The implication is not obvious at all, you have taken what I have said and added your slant to it.

I chose to engage in this thread, I have not mocked anyone, when someone knocks on my door to discuss their religion my choice to engage was partially removed.

Of course it isn't. Your choices are not limited at all. You can simply close the door.

And yes it was obvious given my original statement of non-engagement by politely closing the door instead of insulting them and your reply saying it isn't that easy clearly carries the implication that it may be necessary to insult them as a result.

While I accept that might not be what you meant to imply, it can clearly be taken such.

 

[RDM]

Of course it isn't. Your choices are limited at all. You can simply close the door.

And yes it was obvious given my original statement of non-engagement by closing politely closing the door instead of insulting them and your reply saying it isn't that easy clearly carries the implication that it may be necessary to insult them as a result.

Some of them can be pretty persistent. Obviously not as persistent as the Betterware guy, but still...

 

[DAnDan]

I just saw this on someone's facebook status. been posted yet?

Pope Benedict anagram = Epic Bent Pedo


Ouch ¬_¬

Saw that one going round earlier, raised a big smile from me!

 

[DAnDan]

Some of them can be pretty persistent. Obviously not as persistent as the Betterware guy, but still...

I've taken to having some fun with them. They've come round to tell me their beleifs, and (most likely) try and "convert" me. So I take the same stance, and tell them my beliefs.

 

[Castiel]

Some of them can be pretty persistent. Obviously not as persistent as the Betterware guy, but still...

I remember my Dad once introducing his very large dog to a Jehovah once as his Witness Protection Programme.

They never returned if I recall.

 

[Danthus]

Of course it isn't. Your choices are not limited at all. You can simply close the door.

And yes it was obvious given my original statement of non-engagement by politely closing the door instead of insulting them and your reply saying it isn't that easy clearly carries the implication that it may be necessary to insult them as a result.

While I accept that might not be what you meant to imply, it can clearly be taken such.

Absolutely not.

 

[RDM]

The implication is not obvious at all, you have taken what I have said and added your slant to it.

I chose to engage in this thread, I have not mocked anyone, when someone knocks on my door to discuss their religion my choice to engage was partially removed.

Have you tried a "No Cold Callers sign"? Even if it doesn't stop them knocking it gives you a point of conversation to start from. "Yes, no cold callers does indeed include God."

 

[izzy eckerslike]

The problem is not that Religions cannot provide proof, they can and do all the time, it is that the proof they offer is not acceptable to Atheists, Unbelievers or even Agnostics like myself.

This is the difference between Science and Faith.

But there is proof of nothing , they may present what is so called 'evidence' in their eyes but how can it be defined as proof ? How can I view this proof?


The same goes for your theories on Monsters & Goblins etc in that you say we can't prove they don't exist , does this also include pink Elephants & Green striped Zebra with wings that might be in an undiscovered part of Africa ?

The answer has to be that no these monsters & creatures don't exist except in fables & stories.
If we want to delve into stories written many centuries ago such as the Tales of the Arabian nights are we to believe people back then went around on flying carpets ? by your reasoning we can't actually prove they didn't so maybe they did ?

Proof that they don't exist doesn't just need to rely on the fact that there is no reliable evidence that anyone has ever seen any now does it?

 

[Castiel]

But there is proof of nothing , they may present what so called 'evidence' in their eyes but how can it be defined as proof ? How can I view this proof?

You can view it as they do, in which case you would accept in the absence of any other explanation their evidence.

For example. I state I believe in God, you ask me for evidence, to which I reply, my unique individual sentience is proof of God.

You can accept that as evidence or not, if not you must offer proof as to why it is wrong or accept that you don't know and cannot make a definite statement either way.

The same goes for your theories on Monsters & Goblins etc in that you say we can't prove they don't exist , does this also include pink Elephants & Green striped Zebra with wings that might be in an undiscovered part of Africa ?

The answer has to be that no these monsters & creatures don't exist except in fables & stories.
If we want to delve into stories written many centuries ago such as the Tales of the Arabian nights are we to believe people back then went around on flying carpets ? by your reasoning we can't actually prove they didn't so maybe they did ?

Proof that they don't exist doesn't just need to rely on the fact that there is no reliable evidence that anyone has ever seen any now does it?

You prove my point exactly. It is evidence you cannot accept and as such you dismiss it, which is fine. But then you make a counter claim the God doesn't exist, yet you don't give any evidence other than the dismissal of their evidence.

Remember some fables and stories are given as allegorical from the outset. The Arabian Nights being a prime example, they were not intended to be taken literally or are admitted fabrications so are not really relevant to the issue of debate.

 

[DAnDan]

You can view it as they do, in which case you would accept in the absence of any other explanation their evidence.

For example. I state I believe in God, you ask me for evidence, to which I reply, my unique individual sentience is proof of God.

You can accept that as evidence or not, if not you must offer proof as to why it is wrong or accept that you don't know and cannot make a definite statement either way.

Well, no. You may choose to believe that as proof of a god, but I have exactly the same right to accept individual sentience as proof that there is no god. When it comes to opinion, there's no "accepting that you don't know"; in your opinion it's proof of a god, in mine, it's proof there is no god.

Until somebody shows me some real (scientific) proof of a good (deity style) it's still just an theory with absolutely no evidence behind it. Opinion is not evidence.

 

[Castiel]

Well, no. You may choose to believe that as proof of a god, but I have exactly the same right to accept individual sentience as proof that there is no god. When it comes to opinion, there's no "accepting that you don't know"; in your opinion it's proof of a god, in mine, it's proof there is no god.

Why do you think it is evidence that there is not God, for example I could say that God created my uniqueness and the ability of self determination, what would be your explanation for it?

But of course by your very statement quoted below, you have indeed accepted that you don't know, and the evidence given is based on faith and something you cannot accept at face value. My point entirely.

Until somebody shows me some real (scientific) proof of a good (deity style) it's still just an theory with absolutely no evidence behind it. Opinion is not evidence.

The same can be said for claiming there is No God, until someone shows you some scientific evidence it is still just a theory.

Which is my entire point.....if you read the context of the posts I gave made you will see that I am Agnostic for this reason and as I have highlighted before, making a statement "There is no God" is as much a statement of belief as any made by religion.

 

[jp_bl_68]

For example. I state I believe in God, you ask me for evidence, to which I reply, my unique individual sentience is proof of God.

You can accept that as evidence or not, if not you must offer proof as to why it is wrong or accept that you don't know and cannot make a definite statement either way.

That's not proof of a god. Our sentience is created by the way our brains have evolved over time it is unique because of the different things we experience throughout our lives (and possibly by the genes we inherit and the way we each develop in the womb).

 

[Castiel]

That's not proof of a god. Our sentience is created by the way our brains have evolved over time it is unique because of the different things we experience throughout our lives (and possibly by the genes we inherit and the way we each develop in the womb).

Are you sure? can you unequivocally prove that my conciousness is simply the sum of my parts. Is my Ego just a combination of genes and accident? Can you prove that also?

Did God not create that mechanism to create that uniqueness if what you suppose is true, (scientifically the mechanism of our unique conciousness or sense of self is not known).

Again it is simply evidence based on faith that you can't accept, but the person with faith can. Again proving my point.



(lets not forget that this is entirely supposition to illustrate a point, and not my personal belief)

 

[DAnDan]

Why do you think it is evidence that there is not God, for example I could say that God created my uniqueness and the ability of self determination, what would be your explanation for it?

Personally I don't, it was just a point to show that opinion style proof can be used in any way, to prove anything. I could just as easily say that the keyboard I'm typing on is proof there's no god. That's the failing of opinion proof, to anyone other than the person saying it, it's worthless unless the other person is of the exact same opinion.

The same can be said for claiming there is No God, until someone shows you some scientific evidence it is still just a theory.

That's not how scientific theories work though. You formulate the theory based on observations, which in this case is peoples belief in god(s), you then test the theory by seeing if the evidence and predictions support it. Lack of evidence cannot prove a positive theory, only the other way around. In this case, the theory produces no evidence or predictions, so has no basis to be considered correct.

The theory is that there is a god, the evidence is that there's no evidence that there isn't. All that proves is that you cannot prove the theory, and the theory fails as a scientific theory.

Which is my entire point.....if you read the context of the posts I gave made you will see that I am Agnostic for this reason and as I have highlighted before making a statement "There is no God" is as much a statement of belief as any made by religion.

Fair enough if that's how you want to believe. Personally though I can't agree. In my opinion, unless there is any evidence (real, testable, re-creatable evidence) for the theory, there's little point in giving it any credibility. Of course that's not to say it's 100% impossible, that would be wrong, just that until there's reason to believe it, I'll discount is as "near enough impossible, not worth considering at the present time."