First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
“know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
the latter that leads me to ask:-
Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
error.
I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
“Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
right.”
> First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> the latter that leads me to ask:-
> Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> error.
> I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> right.”
You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
to have.
The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
personalities when that conversation begins).
> On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > error.
> > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > right.”
> You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> to have.
> The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
> On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > error.
> > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > right.”
> You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> to have.
> The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> personalities when that conversation begins).
> Get ready for a good time with this one, Neil. bob600 is the atheist > omprem. :P
> On Jun 30, 10:58 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > First my position, I am what most would consider a "strong" atheist, I > > > "know" God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks, > > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the > > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position > > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So > > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the "very bad" side of > > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily > > > accept and defend other people's right to think differently.
> > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position > > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by > > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from > > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > Why is it so wrong to defend the "nice" theists who do me no harm, > > > while being happy to condemn the "bad" that potentially could.
> > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position > > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my > > > error.
> > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > "Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It > > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced > > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious > > > right."
> > You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out > > their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights > > to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free > > to have.
> > The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by > > giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence > > can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that > > they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they > > support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop > > them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then > > becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11, > > the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the > > nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I > > suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their > > personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
On Jun 30, 10:06 am, manny <daf...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> Well ugly boy you don't need to show your dark side it shown from the
> out side
> it scare the kids..
While I have the deepest sympathies for your condition I must
terminate our conversation, since I cannot bring myself to make fun of
the mentally ill. Good luck with your treatments.
> On Jun 30, 5:58 pm, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > > error.
> > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > > right.”
> > You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> > their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> > to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> > to have.
> > The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> > giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> > can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> > they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> > support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> > them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> > becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> > the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> > nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> > suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> > personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
> On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > error.
> > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > right.”
> You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> to have.
> The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
Well said. It should be noted that there appears to be an inverse
correlation between "good" and "theism". That is the more "good" a
theist is, then the less of a theist they are than "bad" theists. All
the bad qualities of theists seem to be related to how seriously
(read: fundamentally) they take their theism.
So if they become more good by being less theist, is it wrong to help
them on that path?
> On Jun 30, 10:58 am, Neil Kelsey <neil_kel...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> > > First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> > > “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> > > so I would ask that you let it pass this one time. I have lived in the
> > > heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> > > in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> > > on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> > > religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> > > accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
> > > For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> > > sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> > > others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> > > the latter that leads me to ask:-
> > > Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> > > while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
> > > Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my position
> > > is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> > > error.
> > > I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> > > “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> > > passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> > > and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> > > right.”
> > You aren't depriving anyone of their freedom to err by pointing out
> > their errors. You can happilly accept and defend other people's rights
> > to think differently while criticizing the thoughts that they are free
> > to have.
> > The "nice" theists who do you no harm are doing all of us harm by
> > giving tacit approval to the theists who DO cause harm. Their silence
> > can only be taken to mean they agree with the harmful theists, or that
> > they know they are harmful but are scared of them. Either way, they
> > support the harmful theists because they aren't doing a thing to stop
> > them from acting in the name of their MUTUAL beliefs, and it then
> > becomes a slippery slope towards totalitarianism, theocracies, 9/11,
> > the Bush administration; pick your poison. Maybe the difference is the
> > nice ones should just be sweet talked out of their beliefs (though I
> > suspect a lot of the nice ones might show a darker side of their
> > personalities when that conversation begins).- Hide quoted text -
On Jun 30, 9:39 am, bob600 <b...@nireland.com> wrote:
> First my position, I am what most would consider a “strong” atheist, I
> “know” God does not exist, that in itself has attracted some attacks,
> so I would ask that you let it pass this one time.
LL: No, you're just an atheist like all other atheists. You have
simply added an irrational aspect to it that has nothing to do with
lack of belief in a god.
Bob: I have lived in the
> heart of a divided society for 25 years, a society, given my position
> in it, that tested my religious affiliations robustly and daily. So
> on a daily and personal basis I experienced the “very bad” side of
> religion. Nevertheless, and despite my strong non beliefs, I happily
> accept and defend other people’s right to think differently.
LL: So do we all, Bob. Your experience in Ireland is neither better
nor worse than Americans' experience with untrammeled religion.
Bob: For some time now I have been attacked for taking that position
> sometimes by assholes, which I consider flattery, but sometimes by
> others for whom I have a certain respect, and it is the criticism from
> the latter that leads me to ask:-
> Why is it so wrong to defend the “nice” theists who do me no harm,
> while being happy to condemn the “bad” that potentially could.
LL: It is not wrong to defend them for their right to have their own
opinions. It's when you defend their aggressive tactics to
proselytize, often violently, that causes the problem.
Bob: Believe it or not I ask this with an open mind, and if I my
position
> is proven wrong, I will accept it, reappraise my position and admit my
> error.
LL: OK, your turn.
> I leave you with an apt quote from Mahatma Gandhi, 1931:-
> “Freedom is not worth having if it does not connote freedom to err. It
> passes my comprehension how human beings, be they ever so experienced
> and able, can delight in depriving other human beings of that precious
> right.”
LL: If you are honest, you will see that throughout the history of
religion it's been theists who havei universally delighted in
depriving other human beings of that precious right.
