Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Holy sub-scholar, Batman!
Who'd you **** off, Shador?
Dunno. I suspect I must be being camped.
remorajunbao wrote:
Ok. Tough for me to put into words but here goes I guess. It's not about compromise per se, it's more about being open minded. I personally do not believe in God, or Gods or any sort of controlling spirit/sky worshipy type thing, however that doesn't mean that I am completely unable to respect the opinions of anyone that does. Firstly, when you were in Jehova mode or whatever, you absolutely refused to accept any other viewpoints, and now that you claim to be atheist, you absolutely refuse to accept any opposing, religious viewpoints, and that is what makes you look like a bit of a @#%^.
You are using two words that have very different meanings. Of course an athiest will not
accept the idea that there is a God. If he did, he wouldn't be an athiest. That does not mean I don't
respect your right to have that view. All I was attempting to do was explain why I now view things this way.
About the Jehovist crap, I will say naught else but that the creationism was just about the last vestige of that to go. My attempt to defend the quasi-creationist beliefs of JWs should in no way be taken to mean that I agreed with all of their teachings at that time.
At any rate, the issues presented above (in my previous post) have to be taken separately, as they are really separate things. The issue of creationism versus evolution is a matter of scientific fact. I neither accept nor respect the opposing view in this matter. To say that the earth is less than 10000 years old, to say that the various species did not evolve, is simply wrong. It is contrary to
fact. And yes, Belk, in this matter I do think it is wrong for parents to teach creationism to their children. I don't necesarially think government intervention is necessary or even desirable in this matter, but I do think even private teaching of creationism should be met with strong disapproval from society.
Now, the other two issues are not matters of fact but of belief. I believe there is no God. I do not accept belief in God. But I do acknowledge that you have the right to believe there is a God (or Gods). God's existance can not be proven or disproven (though as I said before, it is more likely that he does not exist, but this is not 100% proveable). Still you have the right to belive in Him, if you so choose. This is a matter of belief, not fact.
As to the matter of religion's influence, as I said, it can be used for good or evil. I happen to think it has been used far more for the latter throughout human history than the former, but you are free to disagree. Again, while specific examples of religious influence are fact, the question of its overall effect is a matter of opinion, not fact, per se.
Eske, Star Breaker wrote:
The correct answer is Agnosticism, anyway. Psh.
Perhaps this is the combination of Jehovist and Dawkinsian influence (both extremes, to be sure), but I veiw Agnosticism as spineless mealy-mouthing. For me, of course. You are free to hold that view if you wish. Again, it is a matter of belief, not fact. I respect your right to be Agnostic. Respect my right to be Athiest.