by leavingwt 237 Replies latest jw friends
Then don't listen to them. And if you perceive a "Fundy Atheist" is preaching at you on a thread, feel free to close and move on to a "Fundy Prejudice" thread where I'm sure you'll find people who think like you.
Touché.
A good conversation starter with a Jehovah's Witness (or, without providing names, any other fundamentalist zealot): I would like you to accept that truth is every bit as important to me as it is to you. Now we can talk.
Very much enjoyed the vid, too.
SBC said:
MadDawg, do you think the author of the video was fair in his description of open-mindedness?
I agree with what he was saying. It also applies to atheists as well. The examples that he uses are overly simplistic. I understand the point he is making, however; he uses the weakest arguments in support of the supernatural.
Belief in the Bible or Koran as being of divine origin - those are not axioms, they're presuppositions.
Correct - sort of. The axiom is that a Divine Agent may or does exist. The divine origin of a book, or not, is a presupposition until one has examined the evidence. Then, it becomes a conclusion. Do you suppose that it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to polar opposite, yet valid, conclusions? How would open mindedness operate in this scenario?
The point is, if we know that 1.5 or so billion people on the other side of the world have a parallel presupposition (which contradicts our own) and they base their lives on it (just as we do our own), perhaps all of us would do best to release our childhood presuppositions and perform an unbiased (or suppressed bias) search for truth as adults.
I agree. Many times atheists come across as being rather strident. I have seen them cling bitterly to some criticism of the Bible or another that just doesn't hold water. Of all the posts on this site, I have only once seen an atheist admit that he was wrong on an item of contention. That is not to say more don't exist, but they are rare.
At 18, I rejected the faith that I grew up with wholesale. I spent many hours examining numerous faiths and non-faiths. I have read Buddhist books and attended a temple. Trying to pin them down on something was like trying to nail pudding to the wall. I did return to Christianity, but not the flavor I grew up with. They consider me to be a heretic.
If you choose to be offended...
I am not offended.
when someone points out there's no evidence for your god, that's your prerogative,
Actually there is evidence. Whether or not you wish to accept it or not is your choice.
but don't put words in my mouth.
I didn't. There was no "you" statement.
Your line is similar to one JW friend who was listening to my reasons for no longer accepting WT doctrine: "Oh, so all JWs are incapable of rational thought??" No, not incapable. That's strawman reasoning.
Are you saying that JW's are exercising rational thought?
Most rationalists I know previously had belief in Yahweh and were JWs.
Are you saying that those who believe in Yahweh are irrational because they believe in Him?
Ah, yes, all atheists and Baptists in the same boat. That'd be an interesting party. Is that another axiom?
I didn't say "all". No, it is not an axiom, it is an observation.
But if I expose someone's flawed logic when they try to assert that I should worship their invisible god, I'm like a Baptist?
Umm... No. If you re-read the post, you will find the issue is attitude.
Then don't listen to them.
Are you actually telling me to close my mind?
And if you perceive a "Fundy Atheist" is preaching at you on a thread, feel free to close...
I already feel free to do so. I also feel free to call them on it. But I do appreciate you granting me permission to ignore them.
...and move on to a "Fundy Prejudice" thread where I'm sure you'll find people who think like you.
If my interest was in people who think like me, I wouldn't be here in the first place. Is that why you are here, to converse with the atheist Amen Chior? That isn't very open minded of you.
Many times atheists come across as being rather strident.
Perhaps a bit of a generalisation. However, an atheist even softly stating his conviction that god does not exist is interpreted as strident by many believers. I refer to Richard Dawkins' experiences in that regard.
Actually there is evidence. Whether or not you wish to accept it or not is your choice.
Examples, please.
Are you saying that those who believe in Yahweh are irrational because they believe in Him?
Perhaps rational, more likely delusional.
My overall impression of that last post is methinks thou dost protest too much.
Here's a great example of strident atheists. The girl at the very beginning is practically frothing at the mouth. Truly scary woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSrSwRpBdHk
Dawkins makes his "strident" observation about halfway through.
Fittingly Berengaria was the wife of a rabid Crusader. Richard I.
Thanks for that factoid. We've been trying to figure out Berengaria's identity.
BTS
When I was recently out of "the truth", at about the age of 24, I was having one of these conversations with a friend of mine. Very educated guy. I was on the believing side. Finally, feeling agitated and fearful, I told him we needed to stop talking about it. Because it was far more dangerous for him to convince me there was no god, than it would be for me to convince him there was. I've since changed my mind on that, but I think there is a nugget there. Believers are afraid to let doubt creep in. They must condemn and scoff at non believers. To do otherwise is too scary.
Excuse me for cluttering the thread Burn the Ships. I was responding to SBC who specifically mentioned the name.
Mad Dawg: Regarding "Do you suppose that it is possible for two people to look at the same evidence and come to polar opposite, yet valid, conclusions? How would open mindedness operate in this scenario?", something like that is actually possible to some degree at least. Check out this thread i made on the subject
(in particular the links contained within it, my writeup is not that good).
Its a damn good argument for starting every dialogue on a diffiult subject (like politics, religion, etc) with really getting to know the opponents background.
Two people walk into a room and see another person, with a knife in their hand, standing over a dead guy. One person assumes that the person with the knife killed the dead fellow. The other assumes that he found the guy with the knife in him and pulled it out in an effort to save him. Obviously, one is right and one is wrong. Does that mean that one is rational and one is irrational?
