"There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life."

[Storm]

I'm trying to get people to examine their assumptions and suggesting a more useful conception of religion.

Well, you're doing a crappy job.

The fact that they/you object so strongly to being called "religious" is telling tho.

Um, I don't, because I am. The fact that you try to force them into it says a hell of a lot more about you than it does them.

I can live with looking bad to those who disagree with me. Once again, that says more about you than anything else.

Of course, because there's no way you could possibly be wrong or out of line. God, you're arrogant.

 

[lilithu]

Only if we refused to give our definitions. What in fact "hinders discussion" in this case is an adolescent and dogmatic refusal to consider those definitions once offered.

Amen.

 

[Alceste]

The fact that they/you object so strongly to being called "religious" is telling tho.

What does it tell you, I wonder? That you're wrong, would be the most obvious choice...

 

[Storm]

Tell me, Lilithu, do you object to Dawkins' redefintion of "delusional" to describe those who believe in God?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Amen.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

 

[Magic Man]

So much for making progress....

Have you still not checked out my other thread that I linked to? I have also done plenty of research. I've found plenty of Jews and others who will attest to it, including some Rabbis. It's not that hard. Jews have similar physical characteristics just like Irish people do, or Russians or Egyptians, etc. A Jew is a Jew because he/she is born to Jewish parents. If he/she also practices the religion, great, but that is not the deciding factor.

"Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people."

That's from Christianity vs. Judaism - Difference and Comparison

 

[lilithu]

Of course, because there's no way you could possibly be wrong or out of line. God, you're arrogant.

lol. I was merely pointing out that I only look bad to those who disagree, and not to those who agree. So the consideration of "looking bad" during a debate is completely unhelpful.

But yes, go ahead and call me names. At least you're not being passive-aggressive anymore.

Btw, you jumped in here and presumed to lecture me (based on the assumption that you are right and I am wrong). Talk about arrogant.

 

[Alceste]

Tell me, Lilithu, do you object to Dawkins' redefintion of "delusional" to describe those who believe in God?

I do, as I said earlier. Maybe I should re-examine my assumptions, though.

 

[Magic Man]

In what way?

I don't see it to be that much different than the example I mentioned before of a Russian objecting to being called American. It's not a matter of "American" being a bad word, it's a matter of inaccuracy.

Yes, exactly. It's not that I mind being called religious. I am not offended by it. It just doesn't make sense. It's inaccurate, so there's no reason to use it.

 

[Alceste]

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

A better comparison would be, how many legs does a dog have if you call a dog a religion?

 

[lilithu]

Tell me, Lilithu, do you object to Dawkins' redefintion of "delusional" to describe those who believe in God?

Tell me Storm, are you equating being called "delusional" with being called "religious"?

If people saw the two terms as similar, that would explain the hostility at being called religious. But then that also shows their antipathy to the term.... that whole "us versus them" thing.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Have you still not checked out my other thread that I linked to? I have also done plenty of research. I've found plenty of Jews and others who will attest to it, including some Rabbis. It's not that hard. Jews have similar physical characteristics just like Irish people do, or Russians or Egyptians, etc. A Jew is a Jew because he/she is born to Jewish parents. If he/she also practices the religion, great, but that is not the deciding factor.

"Jews include three groups: people who practice Judaism and have a Jewish ethnic background (sometimes including those who do not have strictly matrilineal descent), people without Jewish parents who have converted to Judaism; and those Jews who, while not practicing Judaism as a religion, still identify themselves as Jewish by virtue of their family's Jewish descent and their own cultural and historical identification with the Jewish people."

That's from Christianity vs. Judaism - Difference and Comparison

Yes, I understand and I do not agree with it.

 

[Storm]

Tell me Storm, are you equating being called "delusional" with being called "religious"?

If people saw the two terms as similar, that would explain the hostility at being called religious. But then that also shows their antipathy to the term.... that whole "us versus them" thing.

No, I'm not. Now answer the question.

 

[Father Heathen]

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

/thread.

 

[Magic Man]

Yes, I understand and I do not agree with it.

Why? The Jews were a tribe just like other ethnicities. People descended from them are then referred to by that name, just like other ethnicities. I'm half Polish. Have I ever been to Poland? No, but I am descended from Polish people.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

/thread.

:biglaugh:

 

[lilithu]

No, I'm not. Now answer the question.

Ok, I object to Dawkin's definition because being called delusional is INHERENTLY insulting.

So now please explain the relevance to the argument at hand.

 

[Magic Man]

If people saw the two terms as similar, that would explain the hostility at being called religious. But then that also shows their antipathy to the term.... that whole "us versus them" thing.

There is no hostility to being called religious, as a few of us have now said. It's just inaccurate (Thanks, Penguin, for making that clear). I might take offense if you called me "racist" or some other negative inaccurate label, but "religious" to me is not negative.

 

[Storm]

Ok, I object to Dawkin's definition because being called delusional is INHERENTLY insulting.

So now please explain the relevance to the argument at hand.

What makes it insulting? (Hint: inaccuracy)

 

[Alceste]

Ok, I object to Dawkin's definition because being called delusional is INHERENTLY insulting.

So now please explain the relevance to the argument at hand.

He doesn't mean it to be insulting. He is using a definition of "delusion" that is technically correct as far as his position is concerned. It's up to theists whether they choose to be insulted by it. In other words, it's only the popular conception and associated connotations of the word "delusion" that makes theists object to the word, although the word is technically correct if defined as "[SIZE=-1](psychology) an erroneous belief that is held in the face of evidence to the contrary". [/SIZE]