> > > > > Hello, I see many people are touching bases with this interesting
> > > > > topic, and I would like to do the same. I am a young girl, which is
> > > > > rather hard to tell, because of my writing, but I am only a young
> > > > > teen. In fact, people judge me for questioning, and trying to learn
> > > > > about the way things work. But I want to learn. I am again interested
> > > > > in this topic, because I don't know what to believe. I want to believe
> > > > > in God, but not to the extent of having a religion, for those matters
> > > > > have are to mixed up for me. But I want to believe in God, but it's
> > > > > hard. All this suffering. and unfairnes. Isn't a god supposed to help
> > > > > prevent those things, and help make peace in the world for all people.
> > > > > I'm stuck should I be of some faith, just believe, or be a complete
> > > > > atheist. Atheist is my closest option.
> > > > Well look no further, We all know whenever there is light there is
> > > > darkness. God is the light evil is the darkness so do atheism. This
> > > > people don't believe in God because some personal problems that all.
> > > > It's nothing to do whether God exist or not. Some of them have
> > > > problems with their EGO, some have problems
> > > > with their childhood been abused or whatever, some just being stupid
> > > > for some reason that doesn't make no sense it all and some are plane
> > > > evil they are her for that reason they work and worship satan.
> > > > So what I say is just read what they say for sometime before you make
> > > > this big, big decision. Just don't rush, your heart will guide you to
> > > > the best one ...
> > > khalaly, take exhibit A. This is a good example of what happens when
> > > you let fear overtake your sense of reason and curiosity. Hate-
> > > mongering, delusion, and bigotry.
> > Fear of what? of evil, no I have GOD in My heart. The only time that
> > I use fear is the fear of God leaving My heart. That the fear I
> > have. I fear being like you anything else it doesn't matter, I know
> > and you know We wont be her forever I don't give a shit about this or
> > that or whatever you go on about it doesn't make no difference enjoy- Hide quoted text -
> On Jun 30, 9:43 pm, khalaly <kalilah.zi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello, I see many people are touching bases with this interesting
> > topic, and I would like to do the same. I am a young girl, which is
> > rather hard to tell, because of my writing, but I am only a young
> > teen. In fact, people judge me for questioning, and trying to learn
> > about the way things work. But I want to learn. I am again interested
> > in this topic, because I don't know what to believe. I want to believe
> > in God, but not to the extent of having a religion, for those matters
> > have are to mixed up for me. But I want to believe in God, but it's
> > hard. All this suffering. and unfairnes. Isn't a god supposed to help
> > prevent those things, and help make peace in the world for all people.
> > I'm stuck should I be of some faith, just believe, or be a complete
> > atheist. Atheist is my closest option.
> I'll take a couple of seconds here to give some advice, to you and to
> the other young lady, because I am a theist but of a quite odd sort,
> and so I'd like you to think about my suggestions.
> What I'd advise is this:
> First, go find some nice introductory texts in Philosophy of
> Religion. These should outline the issues in detail but likely
> without any particular bias. These will give you a good start to
> being educated enough to read more biased texts (Dawkins et al on the
> atheist side, people like Plantinga perhaps on the other) and see
> whether or not they are expressing the arguments and sides fairly in
> attacking. These should be found certainly in university libraries,
> and likely in large libraries in any city.
> Second, go find some nice introductory texts on Ethics. James Rachels
> -- despite getting some things wrong -- did some really nice ones a
> while ago when I was doing my undergrad, but I can't vouch for the
> quality of them now. This will give you a background in ethics so
> that you can verify for yourself any ethical issues that arise from
> the discussion.
> With this background, you can now read some of those who are more
> biased. I would say, however, that if you are going to read atheist
> authors that you don't start with Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins. I'd
> suggest you start with Hume. While his works are older and less
> accessible, they're also far better since he was writing from a more
> philosophical perspective (not that he still doesn't get things
> wrong). From a religious and/or non-naturalist perspective, Plantinga
> seems interesting and is one of the more credited theistic/non-
> naturalist philosophers of the time.
> I strongly do not suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris without
> getting the background first from at least Philosophy of Religion.
> Some of the things they say at least somewhat misrepresent the issues
> from the grander philosophical perspective, which isn't surprising
> since they aren't philosophers.
Fallacy, appeal to authority.
Just because they aren't "philosophers" does not mean their views on
religion are invalid. A religion like Christianity isn't a philosophy,
it's an explanation of the natural world. A biologist like Dawkins
(for instance) is more qualified then most to refute the Bible on that
basis alone.
And since you aren't a philosopher either, why should we not dismiss
YOUR claims on that basis? Being a philosopher doesn't make anyone
more or less qualified to have an opinion on religion.
Khalay, read their books if you feel like it. Allan is employing
fallacies to prevent you from doing that, which is an indication he's
afraid of what you'll find out (which is, rational arguments from
really great writers). I think Sam Harris "Letter To A Christian
Nation" is a fabulous way to start, it's brilliant, short, and easy.
On Jul 2, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:38 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > I strongly do not suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris without
> > getting the background first from at least Philosophy of Religion.
> > Some of the things they say at least somewhat misrepresent the issues
> > from the grander philosophical perspective, which isn't surprising
> > since they aren't philosophers.
> Fallacy, appeal to authority.
> Just because they aren't "philosophers" does not mean their views on
> religion are invalid.
No, but it does mean that we shouldn't expect them to get things right
from the grander philosophical perspective, just like you wouldn't
expect a philosopher to necessarily get all the biology right about
evolution.
If you want to find out about religion and all the various issues, the
philosophical discussions on it are the place to start.
You'll also note that I never said that their views were invalid or
even that she shouldn't read them. But you would never acknowledge
that, no ...
>A religion like Christianity isn't a philosophy,
> it's an explanation of the natural world.
It's both. Or is ethics no longer part of philosophy.
> A biologist like Dawkins
> (for instance) is more qualified then most to refute the Bible on that
> basis alone.
He is qualified to discuss evolution versus creationism. He is NOT
more qualified to discuss "The Problem of Evil" which has been covered
to death in philosophy.
> And since you aren't a philosopher either, why should we not dismiss
> YOUR claims on that basis?
Um, on what grounds do you base that assertion?
> Being a philosopher doesn't make anyone
> more or less qualified to have an opinion on religion.
And I never said it did ... but your reading comprehension has always
been poor ...
> Khalay, read their books if you feel like it. Allan is employing
> fallacies to prevent you from doing that,
Which would be the case if I'd told her NOT to read them, instead of
telling to read other things FIRST. But since I told her to read the
other things first, your comment is flat-out provably wrong,
dishonest, and basically nothing more than a lie, since I cannot see
how the misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.
> On Jul 2, 2:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 9:38 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
> > > I strongly do not suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris without
> > > getting the background first from at least Philosophy of Religion.
> > > Some of the things they say at least somewhat misrepresent the issues
> > > from the grander philosophical perspective, which isn't surprising
> > > since they aren't philosophers.
> > Fallacy, appeal to authority.
> > Just because they aren't "philosophers" does not mean their views on
> > religion are invalid.
> No, but it does mean that we shouldn't expect them to get things right
> from the grander philosophical perspective, just like you wouldn't
> expect a philosopher to necessarily get all the biology right about
> evolution.
> If you want to find out about religion and all the various issues, the
> philosophical discussions on it are the place to start.
> You'll also note that I never said that their views were invalid or
> even that she shouldn't read them. But you would never acknowledge
> that, no ...
> >A religion like Christianity isn't a philosophy,
> > it's an explanation of the natural world.
> It's both. Or is ethics no longer part of philosophy.
> > A biologist like Dawkins
> > (for instance) is more qualified then most to refute the Bible on that
> > basis alone.
> He is qualified to discuss evolution versus creationism. He is NOT
> more qualified to discuss "The Problem of Evil" which has been covered
> to death in philosophy.
> > And since you aren't a philosopher either, why should we not dismiss
> > YOUR claims on that basis?
> Um, on what grounds do you base that assertion?
> > Being a philosopher doesn't make anyone
> > more or less qualified to have an opinion on religion.
> And I never said it did ... but your reading comprehension has always
> been poor ...
> > Khalay, read their books if you feel like it. Allan is employing
> > fallacies to prevent you from doing that,
> Which would be the case if I'd told her NOT to read them, instead of
> telling to read other things FIRST. But since I told her to read the
> other things first, your comment is flat-out provably wrong,
> dishonest, and basically nothing more than a lie, since I cannot see
> how the misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.
On Jul 2, 2:58 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2:52 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > Which would be the case if I'd told her NOT to read them, instead of
> > telling to read other things FIRST. But since I told her to read the
> > other things first, your comment is flat-out provably wrong,
> > dishonest, and basically nothing more than a lie, since I cannot see
> > how the misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.
> Why does order matter?
For the same reason that I told her to read them before Plantinga:
they have "chosen a side", and the introductory texts generally won't
have. Thus she'll get a relatively unbiased context before reading
those who are biased.
In addition, I found in Dawkins that he presents philosophical ideas
but often doesn't seem to quite capture the heart of them or what the
issues really are, particularly in ethics. He gets the biology right
-- I dearly hope [grin] -- but isn't as strong with the philosophy.
Reading at least him first might misrepresent the positions, obscuring
the real issues. I'm not saying that if she reads the philosophy
first that her opinion of what he says will change, but at least
she'll be doing so with the best possible preparation to go in with
her eyes wide-open.
> On Jul 2, 2:58 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 2:52 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > wrote:
> > > Which would be the case if I'd told her NOT to read them, instead of
> > > telling to read other things FIRST. But since I told her to read the
> > > other things first, your comment is flat-out provably wrong,
> > > dishonest, and basically nothing more than a lie, since I cannot see
> > > how the misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.
> > Why does order matter?
> For the same reason that I told her to read them before Plantinga:
> they have "chosen a side", and the introductory texts generally won't
> have. Thus she'll get a relatively unbiased context before reading
> those who are biased.
> In addition, I found in Dawkins that he presents philosophical ideas
> but often doesn't seem to quite capture the heart of them or what the
> issues really are, particularly in ethics. He gets the biology right
> -- I dearly hope [grin] -- but isn't as strong with the philosophy.
> Reading at least him first might misrepresent the positions, obscuring
> the real issues. I'm not saying that if she reads the philosophy
> first that her opinion of what he says will change, but at least
> she'll be doing so with the best possible preparation to go in with
> her eyes wide-open.
I'm still confused. If she reads Dawkins first, will the information
in your recommended texts be somehow wiped from the face of the earth?
> On Jul 2, 3:05 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 2:58 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 2:52 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Which would be the case if I'd told her NOT to read them, instead of
> > > > telling to read other things FIRST. But since I told her to read the
> > > > other things first, your comment is flat-out provably wrong,
> > > > dishonest, and basically nothing more than a lie, since I cannot see
> > > > how the misrepresentation can be anything but deliberate.
> > > Why does order matter?
> > For the same reason that I told her to read them before Plantinga:
> > they have "chosen a side", and the introductory texts generally won't
> > have. Thus she'll get a relatively unbiased context before reading
> > those who are biased.
> > In addition, I found in Dawkins that he presents philosophical ideas
> > but often doesn't seem to quite capture the heart of them or what the
> > issues really are, particularly in ethics. He gets the biology right
> > -- I dearly hope [grin] -- but isn't as strong with the philosophy.
> > Reading at least him first might misrepresent the positions, obscuring
> > the real issues. I'm not saying that if she reads the philosophy
> > first that her opinion of what he says will change, but at least
> > she'll be doing so with the best possible preparation to go in with
> > her eyes wide-open.
> I'm still confused. If she reads Dawkins first, will the information
> in your recommended texts be somehow wiped from the face of the earth?- Hide quoted text -
Right. Allan's a retarded animal and it's obvious from his posts that
he's in no position to recommend or dis-recommend books by intelligent
writers. Saying the Horsemen aren't worth reading because they don't
write from a "philosophical" perspective? Well, for one thing that
isn't true--Dennett is one of the most widely-read living philosophers
and Harris is a philosophy graduate from Stanford, and Hitchens and
Dawkins are obviously more knowledgable about philosophy than Allan.
Second of all, science and history aren't exactly useless in learning
about why theism is a bad thing, either. Allan makes the argument that
lots of retarded animals make in that "people who disagree with
me=biased=not worth reading". Obviously, a human being wouldn't make
that argument because it's so transparently, well--what's the word?--
_biased_ that it would require more hypocrisy than a sentient being
would be capable of. I wonder what the odds are that Allan has even
read their books.
On Jul 2, 12:34 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 9:38 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:43 pm, khalaly <kalilah.zi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Hello, I see many people are touching bases with this interesting
> > > topic, and I would like to do the same. I am a young girl, which is
> > > rather hard to tell, because of my writing, but I am only a young
> > > teen. In fact, people judge me for questioning, and trying to learn
> > > about the way things work. But I want to learn. I am again interested
> > > in this topic, because I don't know what to believe. I want to believe
> > > in God, but not to the extent of having a religion, for those matters
> > > have are to mixed up for me. But I want to believe in God, but it's
> > > hard. All this suffering. and unfairnes. Isn't a god supposed to help
> > > prevent those things, and help make peace in the world for all people.
> > > I'm stuck should I be of some faith, just believe, or be a complete
> > > atheist. Atheist is my closest option.
> > I'll take a couple of seconds here to give some advice, to you and to
> > the other young lady, because I am a theist but of a quite odd sort,
> > and so I'd like you to think about my suggestions.
> > What I'd advise is this:
> > First, go find some nice introductory texts in Philosophy of
> > Religion. These should outline the issues in detail but likely
> > without any particular bias. These will give you a good start to
> > being educated enough to read more biased texts (Dawkins et al on the
> > atheist side, people like Plantinga perhaps on the other) and see
> > whether or not they are expressing the arguments and sides fairly in
> > attacking. These should be found certainly in university libraries,
> > and likely in large libraries in any city.
> > Second, go find some nice introductory texts on Ethics. James Rachels
> > -- despite getting some things wrong -- did some really nice ones a
> > while ago when I was doing my undergrad, but I can't vouch for the
> > quality of them now. This will give you a background in ethics so
> > that you can verify for yourself any ethical issues that arise from
> > the discussion.
> > With this background, you can now read some of those who are more
> > biased. I would say, however, that if you are going to read atheist
> > authors that you don't start with Hitchens, Harris or Dawkins. I'd
> > suggest you start with Hume. While his works are older and less
> > accessible, they're also far better since he was writing from a more
> > philosophical perspective (not that he still doesn't get things
> > wrong). From a religious and/or non-naturalist perspective, Plantinga
> > seems interesting and is one of the more credited theistic/non-
> > naturalist philosophers of the time.
> > I strongly do not suggest reading Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris without
> > getting the background first from at least Philosophy of Religion.
> > Some of the things they say at least somewhat misrepresent the issues
> > from the grander philosophical perspective, which isn't surprising
> > since they aren't philosophers.
> Fallacy, appeal to authority.
> Just because they aren't "philosophers" does not mean their views on
> religion are invalid. A religion like Christianity isn't a philosophy,
> it's an explanation of the natural world. A biologist like Dawkins
> (for instance) is more qualified then most to refute the Bible on that
> basis alone.
> And since you aren't a philosopher either, why should we not dismiss
> YOUR claims on that basis? Being a philosopher doesn't make anyone
> more or less qualified to have an opinion on religion.
> Khalay, read their books if you feel like it. Allan is employing
> fallacies to prevent you from doing that, which is an indication he's
> afraid of what you'll find out (which is, rational arguments from
> really great writers). I think Sam Harris "Letter To A Christian
> Nation" is a fabulous way to start, it's brilliant, short, and easy.- Hide quoted text -
