Not anymore, I'm back in the poppy field.Saffron is mooning you.
-
In total there are 6 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 6 guests (based on users active over the past 60 minutes)
Most users ever online was 871 on Fri Apr 19, 2024 12:00 am
Talking to ourselves
- DWill
-
- BookTalk.org Hall of Fame
- Posts: 6966
- Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2008 8:05 am
- 16
- Location: Luray, Virginia
- Has thanked: 2262 times
- Been thanked: 2470 times
- Ophelia
-
- Oddly Attracted to Books
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:33 am
- 16
- Location: France
- Been thanked: 35 times
Robert Tulip wrote:
This is what is so strange to me (but Mr President gave a very good text by Halle which explains about the brain's reluctance to stretch itself ).
I have no difficulty imagining and living the situation of an atheist speaking to/ living with believers, and vice-versa, because this is part of life.
We talk about life, politics, society...
But the idea that the conversation is often about the other's beliefs or lack thereof, and especially that the dialogue is undertaken with the ultimate aim of persuading the other to stop/ start believing
is bewildering to me.
I can't see the point of trying to persuage. Do people change their religious beliefs because of of arguments based on reason?
Instead of dividing the world between atheists and Christians, we could say we're Hindus and Moslems. Would we argue to convert each other?
I suppose the comparison isn't quite right. If tolerant, the Muslim would see/think that the Hindu is right in believing in a God/ Gods, and respect him for it, and would leave it at that (and vice versa).
If they're intolerant, they would wish to use other means than persuasion to convert each other.
People have to be willing to enter the lion's den if they wish to change the lion's opinion
This is what is so strange to me (but Mr President gave a very good text by Halle which explains about the brain's reluctance to stretch itself ).
I have no difficulty imagining and living the situation of an atheist speaking to/ living with believers, and vice-versa, because this is part of life.
We talk about life, politics, society...
But the idea that the conversation is often about the other's beliefs or lack thereof, and especially that the dialogue is undertaken with the ultimate aim of persuading the other to stop/ start believing
is bewildering to me.
I can't see the point of trying to persuage. Do people change their religious beliefs because of of arguments based on reason?
Instead of dividing the world between atheists and Christians, we could say we're Hindus and Moslems. Would we argue to convert each other?
I suppose the comparison isn't quite right. If tolerant, the Muslim would see/think that the Hindu is right in believing in a God/ Gods, and respect him for it, and would leave it at that (and vice versa).
If they're intolerant, they would wish to use other means than persuasion to convert each other.
Last edited by Ophelia on Wed Apr 23, 2008 7:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Ophelia.
- Ophelia
-
- Oddly Attracted to Books
- Posts: 1543
- Joined: Sun Nov 25, 2007 7:33 am
- 16
- Location: France
- Been thanked: 35 times
Penelope wrote:
I think this inbuilt need is extremely strong for everybody.
We all want pattern and reason.
People just take this urge and turn it into a thousand possible religions, into marxism, etc...
Which God/ cause/ political system should I choose? Why should I choose one that already exists?
"Denying God" may just be that you haven't yet chosen what you want to do with this urge to create a pattern, and you 're not worried about when you make a choice, if ever.
Where I agree with you is that once you've made a choice life must be much easier --but even then, human beings can change their minds/ religions/ good causes... and some believers go through what seem to be very painful periods of doubt ...so I guess the order and reassuring beauty of the pattern is rarely seen with 100 % certitude.
How about the people around you who never mention religion and are decent human beings and you haven't seen harm anybody? Did you think they meant to do all sorts of hurtful things?
And isn't every other person you meet in England an atheist? (If not, it must be at least one in three).
Penelope,It is still good to talk though.......because before I stumbled upon this website....I just assumed that there must be a God because some of us seem to have an inbuilt need for a 'pattern and a reason' and one is inclined to believe that everyone else feels the same.
I think this inbuilt need is extremely strong for everybody.
We all want pattern and reason.
People just take this urge and turn it into a thousand possible religions, into marxism, etc...
Which God/ cause/ political system should I choose? Why should I choose one that already exists?
"Denying God" may just be that you haven't yet chosen what you want to do with this urge to create a pattern, and you 're not worried about when you make a choice, if ever.
Where I agree with you is that once you've made a choice life must be much easier --but even then, human beings can change their minds/ religions/ good causes... and some believers go through what seem to be very painful periods of doubt ...so I guess the order and reassuring beauty of the pattern is rarely seen with 100 % certitude.
I must say this is an eye-opener.I assumed atheists must want to do wrong and hurtful things....and that was why they denied God.
Now I know how wrong I was. I have felt quite a warmth, affection and a feeling of kindred spirit with some people on this site. Before our dialogue, I wouldn't have thought this possible
How about the people around you who never mention religion and are decent human beings and you haven't seen harm anybody? Did you think they meant to do all sorts of hurtful things?
And isn't every other person you meet in England an atheist? (If not, it must be at least one in three).
Ophelia.