I Was a Closet Atheist Most Of My Life

You have the right, DooDer, but exercising the right of ridicule is a right that should not be overused. It makes one a total bore.
 

Sunny, I am a former science teacher and a former atheist so I am not unaware of the arguments about the existence/nonexistence of a deity.

What I object to is the non-scientific arguments of the more militant atheists such as all religious education is indoctrination and a form of child abuse. In this case the burden of proof is on the ones making the assertion, because they are expressing an opinion as a matter of belief.

When Richard Dawkins says that it is immoral to give birth to a child with Downes syndrome if the mother has the choice to abort it he is stepping outside his scientific expertise and entering a field where his opinion is no better than anyone else's but he comes across as some sort of scientific prophet, and a fundamentalist one at that in that he does not concede other positions.

There are many other atheists, past and present that I respect but not the more dogmatic ones.
 
Lon said:
As SPOCK from the Star Trek Program would probably say about ALL RELIGIONS "IT'S JUST NOT LOGICAL"
Click to expand...
Neither are humans all logical, not even the scientists, even though they like to think that they are.
Dreams are not logical either and religion/faith is an expression of human dreaming, a desire for something more.
Take away the dreams and what are you left with?

What would McCoy say? What would Kirk say? All of these characters are expressing elements of Roddenberry's view of humanity.
I like Roddenberry's dreaming but I wouldn't build my life on it alone.
 
Dame Warrigal said:
You have the right, DooDer, but exercising the right of ridicule is a right that should not be overused. It makes one a total bore.
Click to expand...

So what is your acceptable level of criticism, AKA, ":censure, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, fault-finding, attack, broadside, stricture, recrimination;" ? Are they all a form of derision? Even if true?

Is it acceptable to have an opinion on ANY faults historically or the tenets practices? If I criticize ANY religion for what might be reasonably construed as either criminal behavior of practitioners, or, silly practices judged by community standards? Or is it just those directed solely at Christianity that you find objectionable?

Is any level of fault finding acceptable, or is Christianity not to be ever faulted?
 
Dame Warrigal said:
Sunny, I am a former science teacher and a former atheist so I am not unaware of the arguments about the existence/nonexistence of a deity.

What I object to is the non-scientific arguments of the more militant atheists such as all religious education is indoctrination and a form of child abuse. In this case the burden of proof is on the ones making the assertion, because they are expressing an opinion as a matter of belief.

When Richard Dawkins says that it is immoral to give birth to a child with Downes syndrome if the mother has the choice to abort it he is stepping outside his scientific expertise and entering a field where his opinion is no better than anyone else's but he comes across as some sort of scientific prophet, and a fundamentalist one at that in that he does not concede other positions.

There are many other atheists, past and present that I respect but not the more dogmatic ones.
Click to expand...

Dawkins was giving his opinion when asked as I recall. In matter of fact most that have a choice follow his position as I understand it.
 
[]Doo[]Der said:
So what is your acceptable level of criticism, AKA, ":censure, condemnation, denunciation, disapproval, disparagement, opprobrium, fault-finding, attack, broadside, stricture, recrimination;" ? Are they all a form of derision? Even if true?

Derision is defined by tone, not truth. My acceptable level of criticism is dialogue where two parties engage in discussion from different viewpoints without labelling the other stupid..

Is it acceptable to have an opinion on ANY faults historically or the tenets practices? If I criticize ANY religion for what might be reasonably construed as either criminal behavior of practitioners, or, silly practices judged by community standards? Or is it just those directed solely at Christianity that you find objectionable?

Is any level of fault finding acceptable, or is Christianity not to be ever faulted?
Click to expand...

Of course Christianity is not faultless because human beings are not faultless whether they are religious or entirely secular. Yes, it is acceptable to have opinions on any faults historical or present. You can, indeed must criticise churches and nations for their past crimes and sins but it is a bit much to criticise those living today for the acts of those who died centuries ago.

Silly practices are a matter of opinion and community standards change over time. I have my own thoughts about the silly practices of others, but I tend not to go on the attack because there is no reason to. When it comes to silly, each to his own. I find tattoos and body piercings very silly but only say so to my grandkids. I also find Monty Python very silly but everyone in my family loves this kind of silly.

Criminal behaviour is always to be condemned unless the law is unjust in the first place, then breaking it may be the honourable thing to do. Acting in good conscience is not the same as cruelty, rorting or paedophilia, all of which are found widely in all sorts of societies, religious or otherwise.

Or is it just those directed solely at Christianity that you find objectionable?
Click to expand...

You are presuming to know my mind and are implying an attitude that I do not hold. Why is that? Do you suppose that all Christians are a homogeneous class of humanity like peas in a pod? By the way, on the internet and in real life I am not deaf. There is really no need to shout at me. It's not what we say but how we say it that people find objectionable. I include myself in that "we" because I don't always give sufficient respect to the other point of view either.
 
Dawkins was giving his opinion when asked as I recall. In matter of fact most that have a choice follow his position as I understand it.
Click to expand...
Yes, apparently it was in response to a twitter question.

Dawkins had responded on Twitter to a woman's comment about what she should do if she were pregnant with a Down syndrome baby."Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice," tweeted Dawkins in response.
Click to expand...
Later, after considerable backlash, including parents of Down syndrome children, he modified his words and apologised.
On Thursday, following the backlash over his comments, Dawkins issued an apology and explanation on his website.
"Those intrepid enough to venture onto my Twitter feed will have noticed a new feeding frenzy yesterday (Aug. 20), for which I apologise," wrote Dawkins.
"My phraseology may have been tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding, but I can't help feeling that at least half the problem lies in a wanton eagerness to misunderstand."
In his apology, Dawkins also defended his views on abortion for Down syndrome babies, arguing that once "Down syndrome is detected, most couples opt for abortion and most doctors recommend it."
"Of course, I regret using abbreviated phraseology which caused so much upset. I never wanted to 'cry havoc,'" continued Dawkins.
Click to expand...
Richard Dawkins is a Darwinian biologist (invertebrates) and is entitled to his opinion on moral matters just as much as anyone else but not more than anyone else. The question of whether a woman should terminate a pregnancy is a very personal one and involves few others. It was bad enough when laws denied women that choice by criminalising safe medical abortions but it is just as bad to be told that unless one chooses to abort a handicapped child you are behaving in an immoral way.

If Dawkins was a nobody his opinion wouldn't cause much fuss but he is touted as "an atheist intellectual" and his words are bound to be all over social media and even the headlines. He should be more careful and more sensitive to the feelings and values of others even as he disagrees with them. It's not what he says but the arrogance with which he say it.
 
I love watching the TV show The Last Leg hosted by comedian Adam Hills and assisted by Josh Widdicombe and Alex Brooker. All three men were born with physical disabilities and they are very funny.

They have a segment titled "Is it OK if...?" where viewers tweet questions and they answer, usually amusingly. Occasionally they are more direct as in the case of the Hillsborough Baptist Church and Richard Dawkins. Still funny though.

In both cases the response was "No, it is not OK" to behave in certain ways but at no stage was the criticism aimed at all Christians or all atheists. Here are some links to the show if you are interested.

Hills Borough Baptist Church https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60ETdhgLA8U#t=21

Hillsborough Baptiust Church responds https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBZbdQdPzE

For Richard Dawkins in this full episode ff to 13.55 mins : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mc5TvO0DyKQ

Adam Hills is a very decent fellow and he's an atheist that I that I admire.
 
Good! So I guess I can regale you with snippets of my outlandish lifestyle without any negative feedback...
 
What you call hedonism over there is probably just normal Aussie culture over here. :grin:

[h=1]Hedonism galore at Aussie resort[/h]Published: 8:57PM Thursday November 13, 2008 Source: Reuters

An Australian holiday resort will hold a month-long, nude anything goes party to combat an expected economic downturn, media reports said.

"Tough economic times call for stiff measures," Tony Fox, the owner of the White Cockatoo resort in Mossman, in tropical Queensland state, told the Courier-Mail newspaper.

"It will be a hedonism resort, where anything goes for a month. It doesn't take rocket science to work out what it means," Fox said, naming March as the risqué party month.

The controversial clothes optional resort made headlines three years ago when police were called to end partner-swapping parties after a swathe of public complaints.

"You've got to wonder what sort of people go and why. Where is the moral code of behaviour and how do you stop jealousies and fights?" Cairns Catholic Bishop James Foley said after Fox's announcement.

But local regional Mayor Val Schier said she was not opposed to the event as long as no laws were broken.

"People in tropical north Queensland are extraordinarily creative," Schier said.
"It is tough economic times and as long as it is with consenting adults, then there is no problem."

Australia's tourism in industry is being hit hard by global economic turmoil with official figures showing a 7.6% decline in overseas visitors in September.

Industry leaders expect holiday bookings may drop by up to a third in early 2009 and are planning a new international advertising campaign to coincide with blockbuster movie Australia starring Oscar-winning actress Nicole Kidman.

Fox said his resort was almost fully booked for the month-long rainforest party.


http://tvnz.co.nz/content/2308075/425829.xhtml
Click to expand...
 
Wow! Are they holding another one this year? I will book a reservation tomorrow (today is a holiday here)...
 
Or perhaps those naked hedonists romping through the Queensland rain forest ran into the Gympie Gympie Stinging Tree.
Guaranteed to put an instant stop to hedonistic holidays. :grin:

MARINA HURLEY'S DEDICATION TO science was sorely tested during the three years she spent in Queensland’s Atherton Tableland studying stinging trees. The entomologist and ecologist’s first encounter with the Gympie-Gympie stinging tree produced a sneezing fit and left her eyes and nose running for hours. Even protective particle masks and welding gloves could not spare her several subsequent stings – one requiring hospitalisation – but that was nothing compared with the severe allergy she developed.

“Being stung is the worst kind of pain you can imagine - like being burnt with hot acid and electrocuted at the same time,” said Marina, who at the time was a postgraduate student at James Cook University investigating the herbivores that eat stinging trees.
Click to expand...

http://www.australiangeographic.com...06/gympie-gympie-once-stung,-never-forgotten/
 
Why come out of your tent and risk it?
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top