The Atheist Corner

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

How in the world can you object to an atheist publishing on the subject of atheism? Do you object to Augustine's Confessions, or Aquinas' Summa, which jg just mentioned? There are dozens of mega church pastors who publish feel good methodology books in the US, and they are rich. Do you believe in free speech? I read thinkers who do not suit my *needs*. I am sorry, but I find your objection nearly incomprehensible, and will leave it there.

Except to add, Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens publish because they have something to say, and I applaud Hitchens in particular because he is not afraid to discuss historical fact to puncture so called sensitivity. I wish I could quote or paraphrase some of what he has published over the last year, but members feelings here are paramount over the American First Amendment, so I do not dare to try-- and rarely are they defending atheism. They *attack* American religious hypocrisy, among other things.

---

I'm not OBJECTING. I'm saying that I don't understand it, it is foreign to me. I don't understand the need to proselytize atheism. I believe folks can write and publish whatever the hell they want. Please don't yell at me for not understanding some things, and please don't confuse my lack of understanding with disagreeing.

In the US, a country where almost everyone is born into faith, a person almost always comes to atheism through a personal journey. It is my opinion that that is what make personal non-theistic belief so strong; people figure out the arguments for no god on their own. If they never get the urge to ask the question, then no book can help them; and if they do get the urge to ask the question, then they can find the answer that works for them (be it theism or non-theism) without a book. Belief and non belief, at its essence, is personal. The notion of being influenced on such an issue by what someone else has written; that is what I find puzzling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mosca

I'm not OBJECTING. I'm saying that I don't understand it, it is foreign to me. I don't understand the need to proselytize atheism. I believe folks can write and publish whatever the hell they want. Please don't yell at me for not understanding some things, and please don't confuse my lack of understanding with disagreeing.

---

I will try this one last time, and then we'll see where this lands: You posted a story in the story thread about lute fishing. I don't ask myself why this reminiscence matters to you, because we are all shaped by divergent experiences.

By the same token, my experiences have led me to become a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate. I don't see why anyone would question my need to continue to branch out as an author and do critical pieces on religion and the rise of the modern atheist, if I choose to explore these issues.

Is this a fair enough assessment for you?

I am an atheist, but am no fan of Dawkins, Hitchens and the like. I have as much contempt for them as I do for the likes of Hagee.

For me religion is a personal thing, believe whatever you want if it helps you get through life Gods or bunny rabbits it doesnt matter to me - whatever floats your boat.

Myself though, I'm gonna continue looking at modern religions in the same way as I do the "dead" religions of ancient civilisations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I am an atheist, but am no fan of Dawkins, Hitchens and the like. I have as much contempt for them as I do for the likes of Hagee.

For me religion is a personal thing, believe whatever you want if it helps you get through life Gods or bunny rabbits it doesnt matter to me - whatever floats your boat.

Myself though, I'm gonna continue looking at modern religions in the same way as I do the "dead" religions of ancient civilisations

---

I hear you kilted but for me Hitchens is fun, and I have to respect anyone who gets paid for saying what I wish I could say--I don't always agree with Hitchens either, but he isn't just a polemicist. His introduction to Brave New World was more sympathetic to Huxley than I could manage.

I really don't like the ideological literature that splatted itself out of the 1930's, in part due to the love affair with and fear over the Soviets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

I will try this one last time, and then we'll see where this lands: You posted a story in the story thread about lute fishing. I don't ask myself why this reminiscence matters to you, because we are all shaped by divergent experiences.

By the same token, my experiences have led me to become a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate. I don't see why anyone would question my need to continue to branch out as an author and do critical pieces on religion and the rise of the modern atheist, if I choose to explore these issues.

Is this a fair enough assessment for you?

---

I still think that we are somewhat at cross purposes, and it is probably my fault. I wasn't coming into the thread looking for an argument, but I did drop into the middle of one, and I wasn't clear in expressing myself. It's not so much why someone would write and publish such a work, but I don't understand why someone would read a book on what seems to me to be essentially a personal quest, the understanding of the nature of (no) god. I'm sorry that that upsets you so that you choose to strike out at me, but in the end that doesn't matter, I suppose.

I wrote the lutefisk story as a lark, and I posted it because I don't think it is good enough to publish, but I do think that it has some successful elements, and perhaps some people might enjoy some of it. And if they don't, well, they didn't have to pay for it, either.

I'm glad that you are a fairly accomplished poet, disability reporter, and advocate, though. How nice for you!

So the thread is back! ;)

now now Virgil, don't poke the bees' nest! :hammer:

W a r n i n g

Further posts containing personal remarks will be considered off-topic and deleted without further notice.

Quote:

---

C: The Religious Texts area of the forums is heavily moderated due to the unfortunate fact that there are so many discussions that escalate to ad hominem, insults, baiting, trolling, harassing, and or flaming. If you do not know the meaning of these terms please look them up first before posting here. It is not the job of the Moderators to explain them or the rules to you.

---

You can read more about the Religious Texts Forum Rules here.

I just dropped in to see what all this was about and having read just a few postings had to stop at this line (by kilted exile)

Quote:

---

For me religion is a personal thing

---

I have also heard people say this often and wonder as to what could be regarded as ''personal''

Some other 'tangible things' regarded as 'personal' could be, for example,

marriage
human body
tobacco
etc

if these things are also 'personal' then why the registration formality in marriage;
why clothe our bodies?
why detest tobacco (not to speak of drugs)

Sure then there must be 'some limit' to being personal....governed by the society we live in, the people around.
A maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal''

I think we cannot be granted a blanket to say, do or cause to do anything under the mere excuse of it being ''personal''; there ofcourse be other factors regulating it as the mod is regulating this thread!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Logos

now now Virgil, don't poke the bees' nest! :hammer:

---

"But he is innocent governor! Innocent I tell you!" (Character grasps chest wound while slumping behind the cow pen in grand gangster death scene...) "Innocent... (gasp)":lol::lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

I just dropped in to see what all this was about and having read just a few postings had to stop at this line (by kilted exile)


I have also heard people say this often and wonder as to what could be regarded as ''personal''

Some other 'tangible things' regarded as 'personal' could be, for example,

marriage
human body
tobacco
etc

if these things are also 'personal' then why the registration formality in marriage;
why clothe our bodies?
why detest tobacco (not to speak of drugs)

Sure then there must be 'some limit' to being personal....governed by the society we live in, the people around.
A maneater lion then should not be objected for this acts if his actions as such may be termed as ''personal''

I think we cannot be granted a blanket to say, do or cause to do anything under the mere excuse of it being ''personal''; there ofcourse be other factors regulating it as the mod is regulating this thread!

:)

---

Did I mention I'm anti-marriage? (did elsewhere I'm sure). I dont detest tobacco either, and regarding clothing if hot women want to wander around with no clothes on I aint gonna complain:lol: - ok being slightly facetious on the last poin but seriously if someone wants to wander about their house in the nude its no business of mine - just dont attempt to make me do the same Same with religion, believe in what you like, just dont expect me to agree with you.

Regarding the term "personal". Of course it is personal. It is a belief people come to by themselves. As a result, it should be kept to yourselves, if there is a all-powerful creator that wants me to believe in he/she/it, then they'll find some way to correct my thinking themselves without the need for any mortal to try and tell me the good news.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jozanny

"But he is innocent governor! Innocent I tell you!" (Character grasps chest wound while slumping behind the cow pen in grand gangster death scene...) "Innocent... (gasp)":lol::lol:

---

:lol: I am on this one. I'm just a bystander.

I think we're confusing personal belief with discourse in the public square, and in that sense, I read and listen to theologians, atheists and scholars like Harold Bloom, Richard Dawkins, Merton, Hitchens, and at some point I'd like to join the dialogue by publishing my own essays and articles.

Sure, faith or lack of it is personal, but Bill Moyers has public discussions of himself and his wife as Baptists, public discussions with agnostics like Atwood, and while goodness knows I don't publish posts and wouldn't try, I like public discourse to that end, my goal being I want to write some articles.

JBI called it media atheism; I'd go further--religion and atheism have a public component to them, and a social consequence which the media always examines in lesser or greater degrees of complexity.

When someone gets what I mean do give me a ring y'all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

Did I mention I'm anti-marriage? (did elsewhere I'm sure). I dont detest tobacco either, and regarding clothing if hot women want to wander around with no clothes on I aint gonna complain:lol: - ok being slightly facetious on the last poin but seriously if someone wants to wander about their house in the nude its no business of mine - just dont attempt to make me do the same Same with religion, believe in what you like, just dont expect me to agree with you.

Regarding the term "personal". Of course it is personal. It is a belief people come to by themselves. As a result, it should be kept to yourselves, if there is a all-powerful creator that wants me to believe in he/she/it, then they'll find some way to correct my thinking themselves without the need for any mortal to try and tell me the good news.

---

If religion was a 'personal' matter and everybody gets stuck to his own 'belief', right or wrong, then how many religions on earth do we expect to have? Won't the number of religions would then equal the number of people on earth??
Religion is like any other subject taught in schools, colleges and universities. Like any other subject it also have its set rules and those who study it as a subject do keep its rules in view,,,that's imperative otherwise one cannot study any subject for that sake.

even if you won't like a hot wench walking nude on the street that doesn't mean others in the society wont get disturbed. It may also taken as indecent by many to roam about in your house naked when your kids etc are all around.
Even personal and private things have to be taken care of,,,,i agree but when ther is a chance of their being stolen, But who on earth can 'steal' such an intangible thing as ''religion'' unless you want to discard it on your own (keep it)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mazHur

If religion was a 'personal' matter and everybody gets stuck to his own 'belief', right or wrong, then how many religions on earth do we expect to have? Won't the number of religions would then equal the number of people on earth??
Religion is like any other subject taught in schools, colleges and universities. Like any other subject it also have its set rules and those who study it as a subject do keep its rules in view,,,that's imperative otherwise one cannot study any subject for that sake.

even if you won't like a hot wench walking nude on the street that doesn't mean others in the society wont get disturbed. It may also taken as indecent by many to roam about in your house naked when your kids etc are all around.
Even personal and private things have to be taken care of,,,,i agree but when ther is a chance of their being stolen, But who on earth can 'steal' such an intangible thing as ''religion'' unless you want to discard it on your own (keep it)

---

One last post before I disappear for the night (have to up at 4 in the morning for work).

It doesnt matter to me one bit if there are as many religions as there are people on earth - why should it? like I said earlier, whatever floats yer boat.

Teaching religions at school should only be done as a means of better understanding other cultures, in this way if (despite it being incredibly unlikely) all organised religions fall apart into individual belief we can just teach cultural studies instead. If the teaching of religion in school is the best argument someone can think of for the existence of organised religion, then, well.....

It could only be considered indecent to wander around your house naked if you see something about the human body itself about objectionable. I dont. What I do in my own home is my business alone (with the proviso that the activity does not break the law of the land) Nobody has any right to tell me what I have to do in the sanctity of my home.

Why do people who dont believe in something have to protect it? Let those who believe protect it.

Quote:

---

Nobody has any right to tell me what I have to do in the sanctity of my home.

---

this is a very wide sweep!
you can wave your umbrella as long as it doesn't touch any body's nose!:)