NeonMadman:
I thought I should make the point, though, as I am noticing a trend for believers to stop posting or to post elsewhere.
People who like Coutry and Western Line Dance; people who like Heavy Metal mosh. EIther looks silly danncing out of place. I can see the frustration of believers that the paradigm they are basing their arguments on is meaningless to non-believers. Can I do anything about it? No; if they feel silly line dancing at a Steppenwoilf gig, well... stop dancing and stand and listen, or learn to mosh. As the feeling would be reversed if the situation is reveresed, there is no discrimination on unfairness here.
What I feel is that there is a presupposition by religious people that their beliefs are intrinsically deserving of respect, and what I feel is that when this respect is not given, they get 'bored' of it. I don't assume my opinions deserve respect; a dumb baseless opinion is a dumb baseless opinion whoever makes it.
Everyone has a right to post, and will do so as they see fit. Unfortunately, courtesy seems to be lacking at times, and if you insist that is coming from both sides, I won't try to deny it, even though I haven't observed the same sort of ongoing campaign from believers as from the non-believing segment (and when I say "believers," I'm not talking about cranks like You Know and YoYoMama who went around trying to get hackles up).
Ah, an ongoing campaign? Are you seriously suggesting that there is an orchestrated or planned campaign to drive relgious people from this board? I suggest you withdraw that and rephrase it; 'campaign' implies deliberate action with a goal in mind,. I find this deeply offensive, and would like to ask what evidence you have to back such a libel, if you actually MEAN 'campaign'?
I see conversations about exclusively religious subjects attract little interest from non-religious people;
Maybe you're reading different threads than I am. That's entirely possible, since I don't tend to follow the flow of the board as a whole, but pick a few threads that grab my interest from the "Active Topics" and explore those. In recent months, following that pattern, I've noticed the sort of barrage I have described in many, many threads that started out on a religious topic, often enough that I was beginning to find it irritating. When I got to the WNFJ conference and found others who felt the same way, I decided that maybe it wasn't just my imagination after all.
AH.... so you meet up at Conferences with people of like mind, but WE have an orchestrated campaign with people of like mind we've mostly never met? Hmmmm....
Again I say; I have had mnore ill-mannered religious yahoos barge into scientific discussions with an amasing lack of knowledge than I care to count. It annoys the ?uck out of me at times, as they usually end up using argumentum ad cut and paste, slaping in blocks of text they don't understand, but which reach a conclusion they wish to defend - blocks of text that often when you read them has been written by people who make elementary errors in their science.
I assure you I can prove this until you are green in the face; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/59015/1.ashx, look at mattkoo's posts... and check the posting history of Jerry Bergman; he is a Professor who is some species of creationist or IDer who has failed to rebutt refutations of his arguments on several occasions, despite promises to do so. They're the tip of the iceberg.
I just take this as they way things are; I don't see it as unfair, or decide to go to a board where people won't disagree with me in a way that I cannot refute...
Tell you waht, if you can guarantee that you will prevent people of faith (who have no intention of changing their beliefs) sniping (often in an ill-informed fashion) butting into topics that "don't concern them", I'll guarantee the same for non-believers. Obviously neither of us can do that though...
Quite right, and I wasn't suggesting that we could. I thought I should make the point, though, as I am noticing a trend for believers to stop posting or to post elsewhere. Everyone has a right to post, and will do so as they see fit. Unfortunately, courtesy seems to be lacking at times, and if you insist that is coming from both sides, I won't try to deny it, even though I haven't observed the same sort of ongoing campaign from believers as from the non-believing segment (and when I say "believers," I'm not talking about cranks like You Know and YoYoMama who went around trying to get hackles up). The upshot of it all is simply what I said: instead of the wide-ranging spectrum of belief that has been represented here, JWD might ultimately end up being a board for atheistic ex-JW's; the believers may simply go somewhere else.
Well, maybe it's filling a niche in the market and believers don't like it because of that? I know that a few years back there were virtually no boards that did not have a religously minded majority; were you complaining how unfair that was then? I was very glad when I found Tishie's board, as it WAS the only xJW site at the time which wasn't trying to sell Christianity to you, or assuming it of you. This place is good for similar reasons although there is more choice nowadays.
Oh, there's a clear difference between the two if you view them from a view of whether they are a high-control group or not. But is there a clear difference in the verifiability of their belief struture? If there is, show me.
Of course not, if the debate is defined in strictly scientific terms. You can't put God into a test tube, therefore He doesn't exist.
Almost all atheists are very familiar with the logic behind not being able to prove something doesn't exist even if it doesn't exist; I would like to see you defend your arguments integrity with evidence that people are saying because you "can't put god in a test tube ... He doesn't exist"; if you can't it's a straw man argument.
I've been through it all before. Just the fact that we are having this discussion - again - demonstrates how a thread that began with a question about one's experience of God has been turned to the standard atheist vs. theist debate. My point exactly.
The thread was about someone's experience of leaving a cult, and people responded to it in light of their personal opinion and experience; YOU seem to object to people bringing a non-religious opinion and experience because the person asking the question did so from a Christian viewpoint, and you didn't like seeing his beliefs disputed.
I have to ask, would you have objected to atheists' reactions to a Satanist crediting Satan for getting them out of the Borg? Or to athiests' reactions to a Hindu crediting Vishnu? Do you only object to the disagreement with YOUR religious beliefs, or to disgreements with religious beliefs in general?
It seems to me it's only ended up the way it has because you seem to feel special treatment is warranted by one set of beliefs - maybe THAT is why some religious people don't feel welcome here?
The bottom line is that some of us believe in God without scientific proof of His existence, as repulsive as you may find that concept.
Why the insulting terminology? What good does that do your argument? Repulsive.... no. Illogical and non-falsifiable? Yup.
We believe in Him because of our experience with Him, because He has touched our lives. We don't feel any need to be rescued by the more enlightened, who have found the "one true religion" of atheism. Nor are we to be compared with those in high-control groups, whose whole lives become subservient to human leaders.
But what if you are subservient to a non-inspired book and the equally human interpretations of it? What if your desire to believe makes you feel as though these beliefs are validated by experience?
You must realise many Muslim, many Hindus, many followers of animistic faiths etc. believe their experiences validate their beliefs. Yet their experiences are as unverifiable as an external fact as yours are! Will you tell me they are equally right?
Whether you feel you need rescuing is scarsely relevent; JW's don't generally feel as though they need rescuing, do they? Are they right?
For that matter, why is "verifiability of belief structure" a matter of concern? That's just another attempt to frame the debate in you own context. Christians, you may recall, walk by faith, not by sight, and that specifically excludes any verifiability in a scientific manner. You are asking us to defend our position within a context that we specifically reject. It would almost be as if I asked you to defend your atheism by referring to Bible texts that agree with your position.
I can defend my atheism by using Bible texts that agree with my postion! Neon, not only is a Biblical belief structure non-verifiable, it is provably false in many areas and illogical in other.
- Existence of god; unverifiable.
- Account of Creation: provably false.
- Old Testament accounts where god instructs Israel to kill everyone but virgin girls; illogical considered described character of god elsewhere in Bible.
Yet, somehow, this inaccuracy or non-falsifiability is sold as a good point! You walk in faith.... and what of those who die in ignorance or, who because something as unreliable as faith (as, by most belief structures' definitions, there are an awful lot of people with the WRONG faith) is meant to be the deciding factor, die in ignorance?
Now, I guess your response to that would be that I reject science. Not at all. Science is a wonderful thing, and rational inquiry has led us to many truths. But it is not the only source of truth - at least, not in my opinion.
My opinion is you reject science when it's inconvenient... your opinion is compiled from poor logic, cognitive dissonance and good-old-fashioned wishful thinking, replete with special pleading and magical thinking, shored with straw men. Faith? Scarey...
Agreed. But don't be surprised when it leads to its logical conclusion, which is a forum composed almost exclusively of non-believers. Maybe most of you don't care if that happens, and that's OK too.
It's not so much I don't care; I'm more of the opinion that rather than some religious people not coming here because of a 'campaign' against them, they don't come here as many secular arguments are irrefutable by someone using religious paradigms, and it gets wearing seeing this happen time and time again.
Instead, they'd rather patronise an online community where people are in broad agreement and can discuss common interests about their current beliefs.
The fact that non-religous people seem a little less precious about people agreeing or respecting their opinions is that they are just their opinions; you think I'm wrong, big deal - you think a religous person is wrong and you bad-mouth their conception of god, which some really cannot cope with.
The entire public debate on abortion has been a slippery slope.
Well, a slippery slope is different from a slippery slope argument; a slippery slope is an inclined surface with a low level of traction. The abortion debate is obviously not that. A slippery slope argument is one which cites (as you did) extreme and/or unforseen consequences leading on from an action, without any proof of the inevitability of these consequences. The anti-choice lobby often use these in the abortion debate; "if we allow RU-486, then they'll start killing new borns". Bad argument.
Being somewhat of an old fart, I remember when the debate revolved solely around whether abortion could be performed in the first trimester, provided there was a compelling reason to do so (such as the mother's health). A second trimester abortion would have been unthinkable. But the "anti-life" forces (sorry, couldn't resist ) have advanced their cause incrementally over the years to where abortion is now seen as an inalienable right, is available at any point in pregnancy, and requires no reason to be performed other than the mother's request.
Well, I'm not familiar with the exact stages of the progress of abortion law in the USA; I know here in Europe that some countries have actually reduced the maximum term for non-health reasons abortions. I'd be interested in see your evidence to support your above statement regarding increased legality of late-term abortions. As for early stage abortions, well, why on earth should the mother have to have any reason other than her desire to abort? Again, your distubance at this is based upon your presuppostion that it is wrong... something which you have not and cannot prove in objective secular terms.
As the USA is not a religious dictatorship, restricting actions based soley upon a religious belief is not possible.
Currently, the focal point of the debate is whether a child can be "aborted" while it is in the process of being born.
Ah, what purpose does not reading the link I provided serve (other than embaressing yourself by showing that you don't actually know what the current debate is outside of anti-choice propganda)?
And the next wave isn't far behind. There are some - currently considered radicals - who argue for post-birth abortion up to 30 days after birth. Given all that, is my assertion that the debate might go even farther in the future so absurd or ill-considered?
First provide evidence there are such groups. Then show that these groups have any liklihood of advancing their argument into law. Then you have the beginings of a reasonable argument. Until then it's just another fallacious argument.
