On Mon, 3 Mar 2003 15:59:44 -0000, "Tony W" <
[email protected]> wrote:
>> >It is required to accept one world view, a set of beliefs, creation
>myths,
>> >post death myths etc. typically handed down by old men in funny clothes. That equals ignorance
>> >and conformity by my understanding of things.
>> This is simple bigotry.
>Are you suggesting that it is not necessary to believe certain things to be a believer in a given
>religion?
No, I am saying that unilaterally declaring them myths is bigotry.
>Why is it bigotry to declare an atheist viewpoint but perfectly acceptable to preach the gospel?
>Hey -- equal rights for atheists.
That's not bigotry. I wasn't preaching the Gospel, I was actually being quite careful to be
reasonably neutral - you were the one who waded in with fists flying, as it were. You can preach
what you like in the right place; send me emails arguing your point, I don't mind. I have no problem
with the Dawkinsites - it would be a pretty poor faith if I couldn't bring myself to talk to people
who don't espouse
it.
>> You evidently know very little of the people you denigrate, and you have no idea what is going
>> through their minds.
>I number several deeply religious people (of various faiths) amongst my friends [..] I simply
>cannot see what is going through their minds to cause them such strange delusions.
Deriding a deeply held belief as a delusion is not /terribly/ friendly, is it?
>> A very good friend of mine is Professor of Bio- and Electroanalysis at Cranfield (he was
>> previously on the faculty at UMIST), he is not yet 40 and has a string of patents and an
>> international reputation as a scientist, speaking at conferences around the world. He is a
>> committed Christian and lives a modest lifestyle despite his status.
>And the point is?
He is intelligent, a scientist, he lives by the Gospels and it is in every way a privilege to know
him. The tone of your post is that only the gullible or unscientific would believe. This is
manifestly untrue. The Prof. is a particularly accomplished life scientist, and doesn't find that in
any way incmpatible with his belief.
>Why is it OK for someone to come to my door and try to tell me that their system of myth and legend
>is the only right answer while if I suggest that all religions are a con trick played on the
>populous by the priesthood I am accused of bigotry and of denigrating the people who do believe?
Simple: I didn't come to your door or state any such thing. I did not advocate my belief system to
you, but you advocated yours forcefully and in the most pejorative terms in reply.
>if you recall, this started when you questioned the Pope's dislike of condom use in Africa. Are you
>now going to try to defend the old dear's teaching which is helping African to die in their
>millions?
The Pope is not God, whatever he may believe. He is human and fallible, as we all are.
>Guy, you are obviously a man of strong convictions (though hopefully not for speeding
Never
>However, it would be a sad day if we tried to make belief in any given religion (or lack there of)
>compulsory
No such thing was ever mentioned or proposed. I corrected you for the same reason I correct Smith[1]
- you assert forcefully as fact that which is a belief. I have a diferent belief, I accept that it
admits of no proof, I understand and respect the fact that others have different beliefs, and I
don't bash the Bible around here, I think. I don't even have a pair of SPD Jesus boots. Yet.
No statistics were harmed in the preparation of this posting.
[1] though with a much lower incidence, thankfully, and the impact of your assertions is surely far
less tedious or dangerous in context; I am not in any way comparing you as a person with the Mr
Safety - that would indeed be defamatory.
