The Four Horseman hold forth! Dawkins, Hitchen et al.

[Aldebaran]

I answered that question already in an other thread, to be honest

salaam.

 

[Dillinger4]

What do you mean with "personal interpretation" ?

salaam.

He means he would quite like to score some points in his own mind.

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

That's not really the definition of fundamentalism though is it? It doesn't automatically mean extremism.

Actually, you are indeed right, my mistake, it must be its constant usage with negative connotations that mislead me.

I assume, after looking it up, that you would define it as a rigid adherence to ones beliefs? I don't see what's wrong with rigidly adhering to ones beliefs, they are ones beliefs after all! If I was willing to believe something else then my initial belief wouldn't have been very strong would it?

I am also an NHS fundamentalist, I rigidly adhere the the belief that the NHS is important and needed.

And a cat fundamentalist, they're lovely creatures and you aint telling me otherwise, all you who prefer dogs are wrong!

This is a dictionary definition of integrity:
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.


My beliefs have integrity, they are whole, entire and undiminished, I do not doubt them. I rigidly adhere to them because I feel they have integrity and if that makes me a fundamentalist then fine.

There must be loads of people on Urban who are fundamentalist of some sort, be it Socialist, conservative, Christian etc.

I don't see why having a firm belief is such a problem if you don't act on it? I've never heard Dawkins et al call for violent or harmful acts, on the contrary I have just watched them talk about how they don't think religious places of worship should be damaged in any way.

You can debate the validity of someones beliefs or the impact their beliefs have on others, but surely you can't debate the validity of the degree of strength of ones belief?

Is it that you don't think atheists should talk about how they believe that religion is crap, at all?

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

What do you mean with "personal interpretation" ?

salaam.

Do you believe all the nasty bits too?

ETA- I don't mean to single the koran out for having nasty bits, btw, the bible is full of 'em too.

 

[Gmart]

Like the references to slaves?

 

[butchersapron]

I answered that question already in an other thread, to be honest

salaam.

I don't think that you actually did.

 

[Dillinger4]

Actually, you are indeed right, my mistake, it must be its constant usage with negative connotations that mislead me.

I assume, after looking it up, that you would define it as a rigid adherence to ones beliefs? I don't see what's wrong with rigidly adhering to ones beliefs, they are ones beliefs after all! If I was willing to believe something else then my initial belief wouldn't have been very strong would it?

I am also an NHS fundamentalist, I rigidly adhere the the belief that the NHS is important and needed.

And a cat fundamentalist, they're lovely creatures and you aint telling me otherwise, all you who prefer dogs are wrong!

This is a dictionary definition of integrity:
the state of being whole, entire, or undiminished.


My beliefs have integrity, they are whole, entire and undiminished, I do not doubt them. I rigidly adhere to them because I feel they have integrity and if that makes me a fundamentalist then fine.

There must be loads of people on Urban who are fundamentalist of some sort, be it Socialist, conservative, Christian etc.

I don't see why having a firm belief is such a problem if you don't act on it? I've never heard Dawkins et al call for violent or harmful acts, on the contrary I have just watched them talk about how they don't think religious places of worship should be damaged in any way.

You can debate the validity of someones beliefs or the impact their beliefs have on others, but surely you can't debate the validity of the degree of strength of ones belief?

Is it that you don't think atheists should talk about how they believe that religion is crap, at all?

Because fundamental beliefs are not scientific. Which is pretty bad, for a scientist.

 

[Aldebaran]

I don't think that you actually did.

Read it again and light shall come to shine. (I can be a bit dark.)

salaam.

 

[Gmart]

Read it again and light shall come to shine. (I can be a bit dark.)

salaam.

You didn't state either way as a preference, which is why the question continues to return.

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

Read it again and light shall come to shine. (I can be a bit dark.)

salaam.

surely it must be a yes/no answer, not one filled with conditionals? can't you just give us a quick answer?

 

[Aldebaran]

He means he would quite like to score some points in his own mind.

I think he means he wants in this thread re-open debate of something done elswhere. (It takes a while to find out that I'm not all that into repetitive answers and quoting myself.)

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

surely it must be a yes/no answer, not one filled with conditionals? can't you just give us a quick answer?

If life would be about yes and no answers I don't think there would be a reason for me to have a functioning brain.

salaam.

 

[Aldebaran]

You didn't state either way as a preference, which is why the question continues to return.

Go re-read my post. I stated clearly possibilities and limitations.

salaam.

 

[frogwoman]

yugioh - PMs

 

[butchersapron]

I assume, after looking it up, that you would define it as a rigid adherence to ones beliefs?

I wouldn't no. Not in this context.

 

[Yu_Gi_Oh]

If life would be about yes and no answers I don't think there would be a reason for me to have a functioning brain.

salaam.

Hmmmm, the thing is, if your answer begins 'Yes, but...' or has lots of conditionals in then it's not really a good answer is it.

For example, if you don't believe in personal interpretation, except for certain circumstances, then you do actually believe in personal interpretation, don't you?

 

[sleaterkinney]

Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology. Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be.

That's just one long ad hominem though.

 

[Gmart]

Butcher

I'd like a label for people who manage to take part in debates like this but seem unable or unwilling to put forward their views particularly, preferring instead to just pour scorn on the comments of those who actually DO say anything.

 

[Dillinger4]

That's just one long ad hominem though.

Well, yeh. But Dawkins, as a scientist, should be taking the best possible case for theology and then attacking it.

But all I can see is a poor caricature of Religion. Dawkins scores very cheap shots imo.

 

[Aldebaran]

Hmmmm, the thing is, if your answer begins 'Yes, but...' or has lots of conditionals in then it's not really a good answer is it.

Would me answer begin with "yes,but" it would be not a yes but a no.
Would my answer begin with "no, but" it would be not a no but a yes.

Read the post I refer to and you shall have my answer.

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

I'd like a label for people who manage to take part in debates like this but seem unable or unwilling to put forward their views particularly, preferring instead to just pour scorn on the comments of those who actually DO say anything.

Why? They're posting on the thread with you. Tell you what, call some people some labels you endorse and see if they stick. Sounds likme fun!

 

[Dillinger4]

Well, yeh. But Dawkins, as a scientist, should be taking the best possible case for theology and then attacking it.

But all I can see is a poor caricature of Religion. Dawkins scores very cheap shots imo.

Scores very cheap shots and makes a lot of money off the back of it. I am wary.

 

[Aldebaran]

But all I can see is a poor caricature of Religion. Dawkins scores very cheap shots imo.

In my view such people actually "score" nothing but their emptyness exposed.

salaam.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, yeh. But Dawkins, as a scientist, should be taking the best possible case for theology and then attacking it.

But all I can see is a poor caricature of Religion. Dawkins scores very cheap shots imo.

Good for him. It's a dirty war.

Depends what you're after. He's after a public debate on religion and uses tactics to get that vey well.

 

[Aldebaran]

Why? They're posting on the thread with you. Tell you what, call some people some labels you endorse and see if they stick. Sounds likme fun!

Sounds like a funny subject for a thread.
This board should have a forum called "Jokes and Games".

salaam.

 

[Dillinger4]

In my view such people actually "score" nothing but their emptyness exposed.

salaam.

Indeed.

 

[Gmart]

Yes or no Aldy, it's a simple question!

On one side you have the Koran stating the necessity of slavery

And the other you have personal interpretation for the individual!

Not difficult!

 

[Dillinger4]

Yes or no Aldy, it's a simple question!

On one side you have the Koran stating the necessity of slavery

And the other you have personal interpretation for the individual!

Not difficult!

I don't think it is a simple question.

 

[Gmart]

In my view such people actually "score" nothing but their emptyness exposed.

salaam.

We are all empty inside, if you believe the Buddhists, it is accepting this emptiness rather than filling it with dubious stories!

 

[Aldebaran]

Yes or no Aldy, it's a simple question!

No question is simple or it would have no reason to exist as a question.

On one side you have the Koran stating the necessity of slavery

What? There is an other Qur'an, one I never heard of? Did you write it?

And the other you have personal interpretation for the individual!

?

My interpretation is mine, not that of someone else.

salaam.