Interesting

Nonsense was not mentioned. Nonsense is different from delusion. Why a line between Christians and atheists? I think atheists are usually talking about all repigions, so it might be more accurate to suggest a line between religious believers and atheists, if you need a line.

Saying what you think/believe is not saying you know it all. Religious people say what they think. Why shouldn't non-religious people say what they think too? That is Myers' point – and distinguishing real fundamentalist behaviour from just saying what you think, which is all outspoken atheists do.

Once again, the freedom of speech principle has to apply to everyone, not just the ones who say what one likes.

Faith based NONSENSE, six lines up from the bottom, Bags

In the Myers post.

Or are my eyes deceiving me?

Religion and sprituality...well..well...we do have some subjects on here..don`t we?
Let`s take religion first....by all means take `it` anywhere!
Religion has been and always WILL be the most divisive subject in the world bar none.Religion has caused more conflict in this life,past life,and no doubt future life than any other subject.
Do we need it?
Probably not but populations need to be controlled and past experiences have proved that religion is by far the most effective way for population control ie through wars.
Anyone agree?
Spirituality...take it or leave it..your choice....it`s on the same level as religion only no so destructive...physically,that is...psychologically isidious. [hmmn]

Ah yes, I beg your pardon, petallus. I had seen that too but I guess it didn't register as anything much, possibly because I think a lot of religion is faith based nonsense as well. Hey ho. But Myers' point is still that religious people want to be able to say what they think but they don't want atheists to say what they think because they find it too challenging. At least, that is my interpretation and I think the challenging aspect is why people complain about Dawkins and other outspoken atheists – they don't want to be challenged because that is uncomfortable against the comfort of religion. Dawkins has said (probably more than once) that he isn't interested in what's comforting; he's interested in what's true. People don't like that, but that's no reason why he shouldn't say it.

It's the inability to argue persuasively without using such phrases as 'babbling ignorantly' and 'faith-based nonsense' or patronisingly 'oh dearie me' that distinguishes the intelligent debater from the emotional type petallus.

I do so agree with that Nanado.

Bags what can be frustrating is that people like Dawkins and Myers assume other people aren't 'getting it' when in fact they are, and it is Dawkins and Myers who aren't.

For instance Myers can only think of laughably shallow reasons why some atheists like to keep an open mind. It is possible to have no belief in God without writing off the whole of Christian philosphy as 'nonsense'.

It is not difficult to understand the point about only believing in what can be proved scientifically and disregarding all else and I think that is enough for some personalities. But not all.

As for Dawkins being an embarrassment to some of us other atheists, well, his arguments against religion are at a rather basic and obvious level, say that of a passionate fifteen year old. He is inclined to state the bleeding obvious as though it is a profound and enlightening argument which nobody has ever thought of before.

Passionate rebellion against religion: been there, done that, got the tee-shirt, worn the tee-shirt until it has holes in it, given the tee-shirt to charity and moved on

agree with nana and petallus - when someone makes me feel "stupid" for not "getting it" - I switch off and then, where is the learning? In fact, Myers is just ... embarrassing

Please do stick to discusing the issue and not the intelligence of the person posting. We're learning we can have discussions and avoid those nasty threads that cause so much upset. Thank you

Who has mentioned the intelligence of the person posting whenim64? Not me, that's for sure.

Anyway, are you one of the prefects?

I don't think anyone has "written off the whole of Christian philosophy" as nonsense. How could anyone, since most of what is called Christian philosophy (by Christians) existed before Christianity? I'm getting the feeling, perhaps mistakenly, but I can only go on what people are writing here, that that is what some people don't 'get'. Either that or I don't understand what is being referred to by the phrase christian philosophy. As I understand it, all of the tenets of what might be called christian philosophy nowadays, can be traced to earlier-than-christianity sources. I don't think anyone who talks about the damaging parts of religions (NB, again, _not just christianity_) is writing off morality and ethics. Is that what you mean by christian philosophy? Or is it after-life myths you are talking about? Those existed before christianity too.

Yep, I'm definitely not getting something here.

Petallus says: "As for Dawkins being an embarrassment to some of us other atheists, well, his arguments against religion are at a rather basic and obvious level, say that of a passionate fifteen year old. He is inclined to state the bleeding obvious as though it is a profound and enlightening argument which nobody has ever thought of before."
I agree with that.
BUT Dawkins, and others of his ilk, have helped a lot of people who have grown up in very restrictive religious environments/families/communities to realise that, quite simply, it's OK to be an atheist and you won't spend eternity in hell for being one. That's valuable even if it grates on those of us who grew up in more liberal and more educated places.

Exactly when I'm not trying to be 'nasty', I was trying to point out the rules of intelligent debate rather than emotional responses. If these distinctions are not made then this is when the thread take a turn for the worse. It's not those trying to steer the discussion into more ordered debate that should be the target if your plea but rather those who are pushing the limits.

Petallus the intelligence of posters is mentioned on a recent post. Please let's keep it friendly.
Not a prefect, just someone who enjoys Gransnet

Yes, Bags I agree. Dawkins may well have helped some people to throw off punitive Christian beliefs which were a burden to them.

Although, what was it the Jesuits said: 'give me a boy until he is five years old and I'll have him for life' (a paraphrase, I don't know the exact quote).

I've always thought that was a rather depressing idea.

I certainly agree that Christian philosophy has its roots in the mists of time. But it's still Christian philosophy at this point in time.

Okay when, I don't want to be one of the naught girls in the playground

Are you talking about my phrase 'the intelligent debater' when? Used as an adjective to describe the form of debate. Had I said 'the intelligent driver' that would not have referred to the mental ability of a driver but his or her prowess behind the wheel. In the same way the use of intelligent as an adjective is not the same as talking about the intelligence of someone per se.
I hope you can see the difference?

The thing I struggle with is proselytising, wherever it comes from. I do not want anyone to preach at me about their religious beliefs nor do I want anyone to preach at me about their atheist beliefs. I particularly resent the accusation by Dawkins et al that if I do not accept what they say I must be stupid or deluded or both. I simply do not believe they have anything very interesting or original to say.

I am more than happy to have a discussion with anyone about religion, philosophy, spirituality, faith - I find them fascinating topics, but there is not much point in trying to have a discussion with a fundamentalist of any persuasion.

Wise post, nightowl.

Ditto

I hasten to add, I was not accusing anyone on here of proselytising, it was a general observation.

If someone thinks I am deluded about something (believing that something which is false is true, or vice versa), I don't mind if they tell me that, and why they think so. That's not an attack on me; it's an attack on what they see as mistaken beliefs. Nothing wrong with that that I can see. As far as I can tell, that's all outspoken atheists do. They try to persuade by argument and only by argument. Some people find their arguments annoying and/or unconvincing. Some people call their arguments preaching. Fine. That doesn't make them fundamentalists of any kind, as Myers correctly points out, because if actual solid logical evidence for god(s) were placed in front of them, they'd believe in the god(s). So far there isn't any of that kind of evidence (possibly because there can't be) so they remain atheists and try to help people who are oppressed by religion. Why is it apparently OK for people like the pope and the archbishop of Westminster and other religious leaders to 'preach' and not alright for atheists, if preaching is the problem? I don't think preaching is the problem. I think people just don't like outspoken atheists' way of talking. Again – fine. So why not just ignore them?

I do wonder just how much of the writings of outspoken atheists the people who complain about them have actually read. It does appear, from the kind of accusations that are made on threads like this, that it's not much.

Interesting post Bags and cogent as always. I can't disagree with much of what you say, but I don't agree that it's ok to tell someone they are deluded where matters of opinion are involved. If I say I believe the world is flat in the face of all evidence to the contrary then by all means tell me I'm deluded. But if I say I believe in God (which I don't) then I don't think anyone has any right to call me deluded. As far as I'm aware no-one has yet proved the existence or non-existence of a god, so either position is simply one of belief. I don't mind anyone saying they think I am mistaken and we can debate our respective positions. The word deluded is in my opinion a bit too strong to allow for much further discussion.

And for what it's worth, I don't think the Archbishop of Canterbury has any right to preach either. He, Dawkins and anyone else can give us their opinions and as you say, we can ignore them as we choose.

Good point, nightowl. I'll have a further think, but at the moment I do think it's OK for someone to tell me they think I'm deluded about something, whether they are right or not. After all, they are only giving an opinion, and I would expect them to back it up with some good reasons for why they hold that opinion. If they couldn't do that, I'd just shrug. If they could, I might change my mind. I believe in open discussion.

How they expressed their belief in my delusion might colour how friendly our subsequent exchanges were, but at the moment I defend their right to say that they think I'm deluded about something if that is what they think.

I was interested and pleased to read your last sentence B, about the how opinions are expressed. I had jumped to that question just before reading your comment.
The how does matter, particularly in forum debate. I feel a sense of friendliness and openness in discussions can sometimes matter as much as the opinions expressed. It's also about being heard, regardless of the differences felt.
I feel I've sometimes fallen foul of not being as aware of that as I might have been.
I find it's a skill which needs to be honed.