by StarTrekAngel 372 Replies latest watchtower bible
I sat in the Metro Centre reading one of Hirsi Ali's books while Mrs C was shopping. I deliberately held the book so the cover was visible. Got some very angry looks from Muslim men but nobody had the courage to say anything
Fair play to you, Cofty.
But it's not quite in the same league as when posters on this forum respond to one of, say, Perry's OPs.
Viv's no doubt intelligent enough to guess from the context of my post and the way the thread is developing.
Don't blame your outburst on me.
You had a minor tantrum. There's a home truth for your. Here's another "home" question. Would you rather go through life hoping people guess what you mean and have a tantrum when they don't or be an adult and clearly state what you mean?
To answer your question, I've had many discussions with Muslims and had no problem at all. Perry's posts here have nothing to do with that
Cofty: It would be really helpful if those who say other's beliefs should be "respected" would define in practical terms exactly what they mean by "respect".
This is why I posted a definition of respect on the previous page.
It does not seem to be an appropriate word to use for beliefs in general let alone any in particular.
I noticed that, at least so for, no one in the "Beliefs Must Be Respected" camp has responded to that post.
Oubliette - Yes you're right.
The most reliable way to get loads of positive responses to a post or thread is to say things such as...
.
It is a cosy conspiracy of laziness.
Cofty: The most reliable way to get loads of positive responses to a post or thread is to say things such as...
And you, in turn, are also right!
I've noticed that commenting directly on the subject gets the least amount of responses.
I find it interesting that StatTrekAngel has not checked in on his own thread recently.
I like to hear people's thoughts and reasonings on things and I like to watch them interact and accommodate new information.
I like to watch people "grow."
But, if you just start and abandon a thread, what have you added to the discussion? What have you learned? What have you concluded after all the input?
Are you here for the exchange of ideas? Or just to pontificate?
Hello?
It has been proposed here that a belief is only respectable as long as it's backed up by evidence; at the same time, it has been proposed that a belief is respectable in the exact measure that it benefits mankind.
Let's then imagine that a rationalist meets an evangelical Christian whose faith in Jesus moved him to start a hospital for the poorest among the poor in a third-world country. How is the rationalist to approach the faith thinking of that Christian?
On one hand, we have a faith-thinking that does not adhere to reality: The evangelical Christian cannot provide solid evidence for the inspiration of the Bible; that the Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels ever existed or even said what he is purported to have said; he cannot reconcile without contradiction his belief in a God of love and the existence of evil in the world; he is blind to the contradictions of the Scriptures and discards all Bible accounts where God is shown to act with cruelty or condone violence. All he believes (even against evidence on the contrary) is that Jesus taught that his followers should help their fellow human being; and such good will someday grant those believers access to everlasting life in heaven.
And yet, on the other hand, it is this same irrational faith (irrational because isn't backed up by evidence) that motivates him to do something that unquestionably is a worthy service to mankind. How, then should one approach such belief? What matters most? That his beliefs aren't adhering to reality and cannot be backed up by any form of evidence? Or the fact that his beliefs drive him to pay a service to mankind?
Eden
It is a good thing that some people's religious beliefs motivate them to do useful things.
There are other reasons to do good things that don't involve deluding ourselves.
