₦airaland Forum

mlks_baby,

I first want to thank you for taking the time to reply to my questions. I very much appreciate your contributions.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]You're still not seeing nor understanding religious issues as long as you want a subjective interpretation of non-philosophical issues that you cannot philosophically explain on naturalistic terms. If I attempt a definitive context of 'soul' and 'spirit, what's the guarantee that it would make you the wiser in religious discourses?[/quote]When you talk about the supernatural, you assume a priori that the phenomenon does not have a natural explanation.
Most of what was once called the super-natural has been brought within the realm of natual experience and I'm confident that what does not have a natural explanation yet, will be explained naturalistically in the future.
There has not been one confirmed supernatural pheneomenon observed that could be ascribed to non-naturalistic causes in a controlled, verified environment.

When you invoke the supernatural, you are entering the epithetome of subjectivism, as there is no reference or grading scale to describe these phenomena in. I'll be more precise: what is the epistemiological framework for linking the super-natual to the natural? As long as there is supposed to be any communication, you need to either speak the same language or have an agreed upon translation.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]The problem with your views is that you're constrained to apply a partial and preconceived notion about religious elements - your mistake of asking others to avoid a priori readings while consistently appealing to that very same tool yourself! An example:

Soul and Spirit are meaningless terms to me. Maybe you can give me an explanation of these terms that does not rely on a-priori assumptions?

Fair enough; but have you not closed that outlet against yourself by stating -

Maybe, but other planes are irrelevant to me, because they have no naturalistic basis and as such truth and reality are merely labels without evidentiary reference framework.

See - just because other planes have no naturalistic basis, therefore they are irrelevant to you? So, where is the point of entry in this discussion if you are closed to non-naturalistic phenomena?[/quote]If you can provide an objective framework to link those super-natural phenomena to the natural, maybe we can communicate.
If the super-natural cannot be captured in naturalistic terms (precise language and categorisation), it is impossibele to even talk about it; It is so subjective that there is no way we can possibly understand the same when using these terms.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]'Soul' and 'spirit' are not issues you define on terms based on naturalism (in the philosophical sense of the principle that the world can be understood without supernatural or spiritual explanations).[/quote]Why?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]Reality in human existence and experience far preponderate philosophical interpretations; and if you're asking people to define "spiritual things" in the shibboleth of naturalism, you've just made the very same mistake that you see in others but never see in yourself (I'm almost tempted to say you've swung your sword towards your mid-region; but, of course, hope you understand my humour there and not take it out of context ).[/quote]It was actually my intention to do so in order to give you the opportunity to more precisely describe those super-natural phenomena.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]Anyways, methodological naturalism does not provide answers to more involving cases of spiritualism or spiritism - because it has proven itself unable to fathom these issues as long as it does not take the supernatural into consideration.[/quote]maybe it could if the super-natural could be positively defined instead of negatively. Anthing that interacts with the natural world must have natural properties that enable it to be investigated.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]And I think that simply writing off a non-naturalistic phenomenon that you cannot understand nor explicate as "mere speculation or metaphysical posturing" or even "wishful thinking" is very narrow and limited reasoning in the reality of human existence and experience.[/quote]Let me quote Wittgenstein:

what can be said at all can be said clearly, and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence

Either one should find a way to explicitate the supernatural or just leave it at that.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]It all depends on what "other reality" you're after; but I'll guarantee you that "elaborate intellectual construction" is a very humourous escape from the reality that cannot be explained by naturalism or philosophy.[/quote]It's a weak retreat into ignorance if that what does not yet have a natural explanation must be ascribed to the supernatural. The realm of the supernatural has been continuously shrinking since the introduction of the scientific method; Everything should be open for scientific scrutiny.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]Let's just be honest about this: how do you explain supernatural events? There are two ways to excape this: either one denies it with "clever intellectual constructs" (e.g., neurological machinery); or they just want to ignore what they cannot deny or explain in philosophical or naturalistic terms.[/quote]If it can be explicitated, it can be investigated. Unfortunately, all those supernatural occurences seem to disappear once it becomes subject of skeptic scrutiny.
If you are precise what is super-natural, then we can investigate to see whether or not there are naturalistic explanations forthat phenomenon. All those supernatural things seem to vanish in thin air once I try to get a closer look. I am yet to see my first supernatural thing.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360652#msg360652 date=1147700544]Anyone denying the supernatural is obviously closing his/eyes to the reality that exists in other phenomena.[/quote]By labeling something as super-natural, you're closing it off for investigation. You've already decided that the phenomenon does not follow natural laws.

Typically Microsoft. Releasing sub-par software, continually upgrading untill it has becomes something quite usable (and has loads of functionalities) and in it's later versions they finally do something worthwhile usability wise. Hey, the new Office is really efficient UI-wise, so go MS

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]I'll like you to understand that reality in life has much more foundation than merely a philosophical one. It's broader than you actually are narrowing it down.[/quote]Obviously. Reality in life has got one fundamental foundation, the state of being. Through a naturalistic assessment of that condition, we can reach a fairly good approximatation of what reality is. What goes beyond that type of assessment is mere speculation or metaphysical posturing.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]Every human being, young or old of either gender and from whatever background, is capable of love, happiness and other feelings. But being "capable" of those feelings and responding to them does not automatically translate into reality, otherwise there would no such thing as evil in the world.[/quote]Through a thorough understanding of the human condition, using methodological naturalism, we can try to grasp what makes people act and react in certain ways. This will allow us to reach a more optimal state of existence. That's where my utilitarianism comes in.
Only when we fully realise and comprehend the sources of evil can we find ways to either get rid of them or minimise their impact. An approach that is not based on the evidence at hand, but rather starts from certain presuppositions is going to fail in that regard. Not that I mean to discredit religion here, as it can very well work on a personal level (and this has been show to be the case by the evidence), but on the level of policy, it is bound to fail, because it takes a far too caricatural view on ethics.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]Ultimate reality does not pretend that evil is [b]un[/b]real: quite on the contrary! And your supposition that people should be content with just knowing that they exist as sentient beings is not even scratching the surface of the question of reality in existence.[/quote]There is wonder and beauty in the understanding of the natural world. If you go beyond that, you're engaging in wishful thinking.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]On that plane, you would still remain puzzled as to what you cannot explain philosophically simply by taking a naturalistic and materialistic worldview.[/quote]I am content with knowing that currently, there are some questions that cannot be answered yet. Many of those will be answered in the future though. Making up answers based on a shaky methodological foundation is not satisfactory, I'd rather say I don't know (yet).

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]I see where you're coming from. But you should be glad that religion, as far as it defines a person's socio-cultural motivations, is deserving of respect. Think for a moment of why people who were formerly social outlaws and outcasts become admirable after a religious experience - how do you explain that? It would be quizzical to imagine that such people just turn over a new leaf without a foundation - a basis of belief of sorts. In broad terms (as I do not limit religion to just Christianity), religion is deserving of respect as far as it shapes the thinking of people and consequently lead them to admirable social and cultural developments and exchanges.[/quote]But still religion does not do that more than other human endeavors and has quite a lot of negative consequences in it's implementation as well. If religion would make one better than non-religion, it might deserve respect as such. There is no evidence for such a thing though.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]I don't need religion to act morally, as I was tending to morality before my "religious experience". (Most Christians would not see Christianity as a religion, but it applies as far as this discussion goes.) That is where you need to understand that the plane at which you're discussing 'religion' falls short of what it entails.[/quote]Maybe, but other planes are irrelevant to me, because they have no naturalistic basis and as such truth and reality are merely labels without evidentiary reference framework.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]As long as the question of the 'soul' and 'spirit' is not addressed and remains ignored, this discussion would lead nowhere.[/quote]Soul [/i]and [i]Spirit [/i]are meaningless terms to me. Maybe you can give me an explanation of these terms that does not rely on a-priori assumptions?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]Often, some athiests (including you now) take a naturalistic and materialistic view of 'reality' that any mention of these elements of religion spins out of their purview.[/quote]Do you have any evidence of another reality? How do you know that that reality is not just an ellaborate intellectual contruction, built on our neurological machinery?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]I agree with you that the punishment of hell as a foundation for morality is weak and untenable; at least, I've shown in another thread (Is The Bible The Word of God) that my basis for worship and belief in God is not attributed to any such notions of fear of hell or reward of heaven (you may want to take a refresher peep about this by clicking on this entry and a second entry). Infact, that is not what Christianity is about. No; rather, my basis for morality, purpose and existence is in the claims of Christ, and not in what rewards or fears one has to contend with in 'religion' [i]per se.[/quote]OK, obviously, you have a far more mature approach to your religiosity than most. I have had to deal with faulty simple apologetics far too much. I don't know how many variations of Pascal's wager have been thrown at me before. Maybe I was being too reciprocal in my reading of your post. My appologies.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg360135#msg360135 date=1147688460]I find purpose in my spiritual relationship with Christ far outweighing any naturalistic or materialistic interpretations of the question of reality and existence.[/quote]Or so you tell yourself. I don't blame you, everybody is a child of his environment. You need to realise though that this is a negative value judgement on my sense of purpose.

Seun:
Nferyn, it seems you don't understand English anymore. I don't see how miks_baby's statement is related to your reply.

Have mercy on a poor non-native speaker. You're right, I misread miks_baby's statement. The vague wording may have something to do with it. I'll adapt my reply

Seun:
Do you not know what "making purpose out of life" means? Or are you just over-eager to disagree with Seun?

I love to disagree with you, but that was not the reason

Nia:
nferyn, you cannot completely disregard the basis on which people do good. Yes in a perfect world everyone should naturally treat each other well and be decent to all, without the encouragement of religion.
But this is far from reality.

Yes, but in the balance of things as many good actions are motivated by religion as bad actions. Religious people do not hold the keys to morality, nor are they more moral than non-religious people.

Nia:
Now on the one hand, you have the underlining reason for why European Christians came to Africa in the first place: To educate "the savages and the godless" in Africa, all the while exploiting their land and milking resources from Africa for their people back home. Something that obviously warrants disrespect for the religion, and rightly so.

That's why I find that religion as such does not deserve respect (or disrespect), but rather the actions of people that are motivated from a religious stance. The only thing that I do dislike about religion is that it ultimately invites people to be irrational, but that would be another thread.

Nia:
However, prior to the advent of Christianity in Nigeria, twin babies were thrown into the woods and left to die because they were seen as a curse/ bad omen. With the arrival of Christianity by Christian missionaries, this eventually became non-existent. Without Christianity as the basis, we can't conclude that this action would not have continued, at least for some time. If we assume that the action was caused by Christian beliefs, then we must give it it's proper due, not just the people.

If you replace one form of superstition with another form of superstition, even though it is more beneficial, you still have superstition. What is needed is people adopting a scientific mindset to their daily lives, but we're still a long way off. I long for a Star Trek like future

Nia:
Another positive change that some religion makes in society is that it reduces stress and, again, the loss of lives. What I mean is that when a society changes from polytheistic (which was what Naija was) to monotheistic, they don't have to worry about pleasing many gods, just one, or making many sacrifices, which sometimes include human lives in some cases. (Of course you can also argue that blowing up yourself and other innocent people in the name of Allah doesn't do much justice to this claim), but anyways

I agree, religion does have a positive impact on some peoples mindsets. Aparently, religious people are more happy with their lives and have a tendency to accept the misfortunes of life more easily. The flip side of that coin is that religious people are generally more subservient and have a higher level of tolerance against injustice, as they think they will have their reward in the afterlife.
I wonder if Nigeria would have had a revolution by now if it weren't for it's highly religious population.

Nia:
But in the context of Naija, assuming monotheistic religions never emerged, people would prolly still be worrying about the proper sacrifices needed for Sango, Obatala, Ogun, Oshun, Yemanja, and et cetera, (although some still do this)

I don't think that it would be any worse, but that's just my ill-informed opinion. I cannot substantiate this.

Nia:
I think as a people we prefer if something is either one or the other: all good or all bad, (deserving of respect or not deserving of respect) but most things in life are too complex to be so simplistic.

True

Nia:
Personally, I believe many religions could use more common sense, tolerance, and less focus on mysticism, as well as encouragement of human beings' capabilities to deal with their own problems rather than "leaving everything to God" or in the case of radical muslims, fighting Allah's battles by "blowing up infidels", treating women like second class citizens, etc.

As Islam seem to have entered it's Dark Age, Christianity already went through that phase. Let's hope it doesn't relapse (the developments in the US do worry me)

Nia:
Eventually we must ask ourselves if the world today would be a better place without religion--all religions-- and that's something I think is debatable and both sides of the argument would have enough proof to back up their claims.

I don't think it would be necessarily better. It would definitely be more rational and that opens up more avenues for improvement, but I guess the human race as a species is far too irrational and maybe religion keeps the lid on the boiling pan.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg357894#msg357894 date=1147600938]Lastly, nferyn (as one persuaded to be more inclined to atheism) may not share your opinions in some related issues; but I think he should now have a ready answer to his concern from your reaction, otherwise it would be interesting for him to ask you why you feel that your belief deserves respect:[/quote]1. I'm not really inclined to atheism. I am an atheist. More specifically a weak, explicit, agnostic atheist in the utilitarian humanist tradition.
2. It seems that Seun is taking a position to the extreme just to stir up an argument, maybe he's trolling on his own board who knows?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg357833#msg357833 date=1147597089][SNIP]
Certain people want to adopt the philosophical view that 'you make purpose out of life', but that is only philosophical and has no basis as coming full circle with the realities that cannot be explained away philosophically. Many times, this inability to reconcile the realities we deal with in religious life is informed by the view one takes of religion (especially where they many times express a sentimental disdain thereto).[/quote]Actually, I [b]am [/b]one of them. Purpose is what you define as purpose for yourself. I do not see an ultimate purpose in life or existence. I find it vanity of the highest degree that, when knowing the insignificance of earth, life and humanity on a cosmic plane, that there should be an ultimate purpose. People should be very glad that they, out of all the possible configurations of matter and energy, do exist as sentient beings, capable of love and happiness. That alone should suffice
I do not see anything that needs reconciling when it comes to reality. Can you be more specific here?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg357833#msg357833 date=1147597089]Yes and no. 'Yes' in the sense that people deserve respect out of their positive actions; and 'No' because action and belief are on the same plane. You don't simply attach respect to abstract ideas of action, behaviour, attitudes, etc. and conveniently leave out what motivates their actions. People don't simply act respectably; there's always a basis for their actions - be they religious or non-religious.[/quote]If you would consider all the actions done out of religious motivation, the good would even out the bad and vice versa. Religious people are in no means more virtuous than non religious people, so religion as such is not a sufficient basis for respect.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg357833#msg357833 date=1147597089]I pray for the good of others and seek out their welfare - that's part of my life: and that's what my beliefs are as a Christian. I would not do this on a mere 'acting respectably' because I would have no basis for that.[/quote]Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, but are you saying that you need religion to act morally? Do you need the reward of heaven and/or the punishment of hell to be moral. If that is the case, the foundation of that morality is rather weak. Correct me if I'm misreading you here.

mamaput,
That's exactly how I feel, the freedom of your fist ends where my nose begins. The moment someone enters 'my space' without being invited (and that is physical as well as metal, visual and auditory), that person is tresspassing. That's why I don't like proselitising types that think that they can push their conviction on you whenever it pleases them.

I once attended a funeral of a woman who was an atheist all her life, although most of her family remained Catholic. The family insisted that she'd be burried after a Catholic service, even though that was definitely against the woman's wishes. I found that treatment highly disrespectful of the woman and actually very offensive.

Nia:
Overall, I think religions can be tolerated and respected as long as they provide something positive to society--and only respected for those positive aspects--and when they do not, they should, likewise lose respect.

This I agree with. I can understand that some people need religion to feel whole and thus subscribe to a certain doctrine. My point is that it is not the religion that deserves respect, but rather the actions of people that act out of a religious conviction.
Whatever drives someone to do good is irrelevant, it's the good deeds that count.

Damest09:
It's not religion that deserve respect, is God and if we respect God, we will respect the religion that comes with it.

This is a bit simple, isn't it?
I for one do not believe in God. As a consequence of what you're saying, I should not respect religion.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355537#msg355537 date=1147487973]@nferyn,

In response to your previous:

Most atheists I know have an attitude towards religious people; that's the sense in which I used the clause "atheist attitude". I've recognised the divegence of opinions among atheists in my earlier posts, yes?[/quote]That attitude probably comes from negative experiences with religious people in the past. An a priori vitriolic attitude is absolutely unnecessary and offensive, but do realise that some 'believers' react very negatively to someone openly claiming to be atheist. It's a double edged sword.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355537#msg355537 date=1147487973]"Intents" and 'motives' point pretty much in the direction of what I've been saying all along. There's no problem at all with questioning the historicity of the Bible; but when the motives of such people are disingenuous, we both recognise that quest for information is not the drive behind such enquiries.[/quote]I can only speak for myself, but when I do such a thing, it is because I have trouble understanding why intelligent people can hold beliefs that are in clear contradiction with observed and inferred (through scientific investiation) reality.
I just want to understad why people can believe (especially the stricter, literalist variations), as it is totally beyond me.
The many talks I had with my wife didn't make me any wiser, they only left me more confused.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355537#msg355537 date=1147487973]But you should carefully reconsider the replies - I've shied away from affirming the correctness of any position. In as much as defining concepts were called for, I've used that only as a means to understand where we were coming from and where we were going. My arguments largely have been towards proffering why religion deserves respect: simply because "people are largely defined or identified by what they believe; and they react to views that contradict their convictions."[/quote]Ok, I understand your position, but I don't agree. I actually find it a dangerous attitude, as it closes of certain ideas for investigation (but that would be another thread). Maybe people should be careful in the tone they use in these inquiries, but that's as far as I personally would be willing to go.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355537#msg355537 date=1147487973]. . .And in response to yours just above:

Well, I may agree with you to very great degree that environment affects our feelings, thinking and responses. Before I travelled out of Nigeria, my dad could not openly tell his family that he had become Christian. Now in Europe, he's unabashed nor afraid about it. So there - you have a point. [/quote]This is sad to hear. I hope everything is well now.

Seun:
Atheism is a belief that God doesn' exist. That point is not under dispute.

No it isn't, that's strong, explicit atheism, a subset of atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in God(s).
You also have weak atheists, implicit atheists, etc

Seun:
What is under dispute is the proper response when someone says, "what you just did is disrespectful to my religion". Should you apologize because "religions deserve respect" or can just tell them to go to hell?

There are more than two possible answers to that question. Most positions would lie somewhere in between (and an atheist telling somebody to go to hell isn't exactly meaningful)

@ mlks_baby
My reaction would probably be closer to yours than to Seun's, but maybe that's a consequence of living in an environment where I'm not ostracised for my beliefs. I don't know how I would react if I would live in Nigeria.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355509#msg355509 date=1147485397]@nferyn,

Let's not play with words here in order not to run the risk of a narrow perspective. Beyond Beligium, atheistic attitude has not been as courteous as you're supposing towards religious people. 'Respect', 'courtesy', 'cordiality' 'politeness', 'civility', 'affability', etc are all synonymous - so anyone can make their pick from the list (unless your definition of 'respect' goes wide of berth at this level, then I apologise).[/quote]Please do give some examples. There is nothing in atheism as such (as it is not a philosophy or worldview) that would warrant a label such as 'atheist attitude'. The divergence of opinions among atheists is quite big. I would personally describe me as a strongly positivistic, humanist utilitarianist and I'm definitely a minority among atheists. Most of them don't hold an explicit 'atheist' worldview, as atheism is not a possitive assertion, but a negative one.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355509#msg355509 date=1147485397]Secondly, you don't have to take my reference to 'mindless bigotry' personally; I intended it in a general way, which is what happens when discussions spiral out of focus. I think we're both saying the same things at some level, and I do wish you'd understand my contexts. Respect and courtesy are very strange words in situations where people, for example, in the name of free speech deliberate ridicule your persuasions. I don't believe in Islam; but does that give me the licence to ridicule Prophet Muhammad and the Qur'an? What is to be achieved from that?[/quote]There's a difference between ridicule, humour and criticism, although the first two may overlap. It mainly depends on the intent when you're judging some expressions of free speech. I personally found the Danish Muhammad cartoons distasteful, but the reactions to those cartoons were completely over the top. Any call to censorship should be met with a strong and vigorous no.
Questioning the claims in the Bible or the Qur'an is not ridicule, even though that questioning may be diametrically opposed to the central tenets of the religion in question, e.g. questioning the historicity of the Bible is perfectly legitimate and should never be considered ridicule.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355509#msg355509 date=1147485397]With the rest, you're free to disagree ever so passionately, but my persuasions have not been weakened thereby in as much as I've seen for myself the things I stated.[/quote]In the context of this thread, I'm not really interested in what position is correct, but rather what the reasons are for stating that religion deserves respect. I still have only seen an affirmation of that initial position and not really arguments in favor of the assertion.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Thanks, nferyn.

Now, I stated in the other thread that I've no interest in the least for needless arguments.

When you consider the persecutions of people in various countries, on what basis do the perscutors harrass their victims? Is it on the basis of their being citizens of China or of their religious beliefs? Religious persuasions define who you are to a greater degree than your trying to separate them.[/quote]I don't see what you're implying here. What binds many people following the western monothistic religions is their strong ostracism regarding atheists. Now, In belgium, I don't have much of a problem, but when I openly say that I'm an atheist among Nigerians, I am sometimes treated very disrespectfully to say the least, for no good reason at all.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Proselytizing can be done in any of several ways, and as surely, there are several skeptic and atheistic organizations that invite membership applications from the public. It's really a weak excuse for anyone to not see it as the same on the basis of "not forcing anyone" to visit their website or read their articles and persuasions of their worldviews. It is one and the same thing, albeit different methodologies and strategies.[/quote]No it isn't. When the church bells wake me up sunday morning, I'm not in a happy mood. When Jehova's witnesses come to pay me a visit, even though I repeatedly told them that I am not intrested, when someone asks to pray together, even though they know very well that I'm not a Christian, etc I am bothered against my will. Different methods indeed.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Else, when people read about atheistic views, no one should be asking to join any skeptic or atheistic organizations, and it would be a serious default for such organizations to even have solicited such memberships in the first place.[/quote]How much active sollicitation springs from atheist organisations? It's quite hard to find such organisations in the first place, as organising atheists (as atheists) is like herding cats. When those organisations are solliciting memberships, they are only reaching out to those that are receptive to their ideas, very different from trying to convert people, even though they made it abundantly clear that they are not interested in conversion.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]"You don't need respect to investigate a claim" - that is if mindless bigotry makes a suitable alternative attitude and posture?[/quote]This is a strawman argument. Where did you find mindless bigotry in anything I wrote? If you found such a thing, please point it out to me, as I see no such thing.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Is that why you sometimes have reacted to people passing comments on your posts or views because nobody needs respect to investigate your claims?[/quote]Courtesy is enough, respect is not needed. I do react when the replies are ill informed (and when I have the time/energy)

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Nah, because there's an Indian proverb that says: "When you've cut off the nose of somebody, there's no need giving him a rose to smell." Even if you want to present an alternative view, it's highly impossible for anyone to pay attention if your approach is brash or discourteous.[/quote]To some people, the very idea of someone having alternative views is insulting. Difficult not to be brash and discourteous in their eyes without simple keeping your mouth shut.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]Any extant worldview and religious persuasion today have suffered some blot in their history as to shape their present identity. So, the Catholic Church may not be applauded by many people today; but what about the others who make a case for "clean hands" Is it atheism, communism, Protestantism, Islam, agnosticism, New Ageism, or philosophy that have impeccable CVs?[/quote]Atheist is simply the lack of God-belief, it is neither a philosophy, nor a worldview. Many religions have a very bloody history. A simple acknowledgement of that history would do instead of trying to rationalise evil actions as not true to their religion.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]You are what you are by what you believe - whether religious or not.[/quote]I am first and foremost by what I do, not what I believe in. My actions are inspired by my beliefs, but my actions define me.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]As individuals, we deserve respect,[/quote]Fully agree

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]and that should be extended to my persuasions, even though you may not understand it.[/quote]Why? I may tolerate them and not actively dislike them, but why should I respect them?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]I don't understand the atheistic mindset; but that is no licence for a display of disrespect either to the atheist or to his persuasions, even though I don't have confidence in his position.[/quote]It's just a lack of god-belief. There are as many mindsets of athests as there are atheists.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12775.msg355447#msg355447 date=1147481396]I hope this makes some sense. Your reactions are many times based on who you are - and that in turn is shaped by what you believe.

Respectfully. [/quote]Thanks for your time and effort. I do respect you as a person, but I still don't understand why I should repect religion - no offense inended.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355409#msg355409 date=1147478608]Alrighty, I've been there. Thanx, but I'm not in the least interested in being drawn into an argument for the sake of it. [/quote]It was more of a philosophical question anyway, so the argument, or more precisely, the reasoning behind it, is what interests me.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355400#msg355400 date=1147478229]Whether or not you're religious, your worldview defines who you are - and that is where respect comes in, if that inquiry is on a genuine note.[/quote]I see, but that would be more respect for the person as a consequence of the actions that define him/her, wouldn't it?

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355400#msg355400 date=1147478229]The same question could be asked as to why anyone should respect the American Atheists, the Atheist Alliance and several atheistic and skeptic organizations:[/quote]I don't think those skeptic organisations deserve respect as such. Through their actions they may merit respect, but nothing more than that.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355400#msg355400 date=1147478229]if it's not worth it at all, it's hypocritical of them to have taken the effort to float a website, some calling for membership applications from the public (same as proselytising),[/quote]That's not exactly the same. Proselitising is actively trying to convince others of your point of view, even though it's against their will. Running a website is not forcing anyone to visit it, let alone forcing it on others.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355400#msg355400 date=1147478229]let alone seek to state any claim defining their views.[/quote]I really don't understand this. Any claim should be judged on it's merits. You don't need respect to investigate a claim.

[quote author=mlks_baby link=topic=12100.msg355400#msg355400 date=1147478229]No one's chastising you for your concern, but where does respect come in if it's only something the religious don't deserve?[/quote]I never said that religious [b]people [/b]don't deserve respect, but if they do, it will be because of the actions that define them. There are many Christians whom I admire for what they do. Right now in Belgium, the Catholic Church, as an organisation, is speaking loudly in favor of the rights of people without residence permits. I concur and repect them for that position. That doesn't mean though that I think Catholicism in itself deserves respect.

mlks_baby,

I will reply in the other thread

thx

KAG:
It's an internet thing, it only seems to happen on the interweb.

So you're taking on an arachnid persona on the web, more fit to your environment

People, what follows is an honest question, so don't chastise me for it.

Why do religions deserve respect? people holding religious beliefs (as people) I can understand, but why do religions deserve respect?

Isn't respect earned? What in religions makes it worthy of respect?

A few more christians with an unwaranted persecution complex Atheists are not out to get you, as long as you don't proselitise, we (at least I, but I think I speak for most atheists) will gladly tolerate your beliefs.

People, what follows is an honest question, so don't chastise me for it

[size=13pt]Why do religions deserve respect?[/size]

@KAG,
You seem to change gender at will, didn't know that was possible amongst mammals

xkape:
I have been qietly observing the exchanger bw KAG nferyn and simmy.
Thank God someone else has pointed out some of the points i have been screaming at my evolutionist friends

You mean the same tired arguments that have been refuted time after time, but that keep on popping up?

xkape:
The big inter- family jumps observed within species cannot be explained away with a graduall speciation.

Why not?

xkape:
Present observations do not support this, at best we can see within species variation.

Says who? On basis of what evidence? Maybe you can define species in such a way that it does exactly that. All definitions of species that are used within biology refute your statement. How do [b]you [/b]define species?

xkape:
Our current knowledge of genetics does not support this.

How does it not support this?

xkape:
we have maped the human genome, we have broken inheritance down to its most basic elements. we can match genes exactly to a sequence of numbers. proven mathematical and statistical methods do not support a random rearrangement of genomes of simple primordial animals to give the structures we observe in later organisms (but this whole argument seems to have gone over everybody's head).

Explain why this is impossible. What mechanisms prevent evolutionary mechanisms from arriving at our current biodiversity? If you cannot, this is empty talk.

xkape:
i even tried to to explain the thermodynamic improbability of of evolution but i heard rebuttals such as.
"the earth is not a closed system", duh then no experiment concerning a closed system on earth should be valid. the abstraction of a closed system was used just to demonstrate a basic principle. as nferyn rightly pointed out energy enters and leaves the earth all the time. but even he will not argue that there is a net absorption of energy, and this energy applied within a genetic framework will lead to a degradation of genetic structure, not a build up.

So, as KAG pointed out, following this reasoning, all complex organisms should degrade to less complex organisms and reproduction should be impossible, as they contradict your faulty understanding of thermodynamics.
One simple instance of gene duplication refutes your ridiculous assertion and proves that an increase in complexity (information) of a genetic structure is possible. How do you explain mitochondria?

xkape:
like simi said, mutations cannot consitently add to genetic material over time, it just doesnt make sense. mutations are degradatory (is that a word?) in nature. the larger portion of mutations we observe in organisms today are detrimental or at worst neutral. the seemingly beneficial ones, like those that give resistance to pathogens or chemicals are all within the scope of making a species more adaptable to its environment. it doesnt make the spcies another thing. even KAG has shown that virii have been mutating for eons, but are sttill virri. the mythical unicellular organism that became a multicellular one has nevr been demonstrated

What mechanism prevents a cumulation of these beneficial mutations? If you cannot substantiate this, your argument is simply personal incredulity: I cannot understand how, so it is impossible.

xkape:
even fossilation show a clear stratification instead of gradiation in species

This is gibberish: define stratification and gradation in this context and make your context clear.

xkape:
but as always people will believe what they chose to believe

Obviously, all the evidence points in the direction of evolution and not once has the modern synthesis been falsified.

eveseh:


OK
i agree with ya,
so can u tell me why we suffer from malaria?

Read my contributions to this thread. I hope you already passed a basic reading comprehension test at school or has the level in the schools of our northern neighbours already dropped that much that it is no longer an option?

Ignore this ignorant troll

eveseh:
why not?

Because ask God is not Dutch, it's English