"You can't debate about religion without being rude"

[Telstra]

I believe in myself.......

So you don't believe in "god"

 

[kallipolis]

So you don't believe in "god"

I can't see you, or hear you, or touch you...but I know that you exist...for your posts here evidence your existence..

In this sense...I believe in you...despite your label..Telstra...being of no consequence...to my understanding..that you exist..

 

[Telstra]

I can't see you, or hear you, or touch you...but I know that you exist...for your posts here evidence your existence..

In this sense...I believe in you...despite your label..Telstra...being of no consequence...to my understanding..that you exist..

LOL ...................... i exist because of the posts on here and that is the evidence.

 

[kallipolis]

LOL ...................... i exist because of the posts on here and that is the evidence.

Evidence of your existence is provided by you, when you post here...otherwise, I would not know that you exist...

In other words your communications here provide me with the understanding that you exist.

Your interactions with me, confirm that you exist...

I also recognise that you do not exist as a result of your interactions with me, and others here....

 

[Telstra]

Evidence of your existence is provided by you, when you post here...otherwise, I would not know that you exist...

In other words your communications here provide me with the understanding that you exist.

Your interactions with me, confirm that you exist...

I also recognise that you do not exist as a result of your interactions with me, and others here....

I agree ALL that.
Now where is the EVIDENCE for "god" ???????????????????????

 

[kallipolis]

I agree ALL that.
Now where is the EVIDENCE for "god" ???????????????????????

You know that I exist as a result of your communications with me...a two way street...dialogue....

 

[Telstra]

You know that I exist as a result of your communications with me...a two way street...dialogue....

You didn't answer the question.

 

[kallipolis]

You didn't answer the question.

I answered your question...my way...

 

[FirmaFan]

Not believing in god makes one an atheist regardless what guides them to that conclusion. This is basically a No True Scotsman argument you are making. Not all atheists are atheists for logical reasons.

The example given was a person claiming to be an atheist because they are angry and hate god. Being angry and hating god by necessity acknowledges the existence of god. That is the exact opposite of atheism.

 

[bankside]

Ahh, each of us lost in his own interpretations....

How shall I interpret kallipolis's contributions, among others, to this thread?

I think he is on topic, in his own way. "You can't debate about religion without being rude" seems to have been taken by him less as a question to ponder but as an instruction. Or perhaps not. Perhaps he intends to satirise the question by demonstrating the consequences of incivility in discourse, and thus commit us all to exchanges that are sunny and polite, and lead us to obey all the social niceties that make smalltalk such an unchallenging delight.

The first rule I remember about polite conversation was to never discuss sex, politics, or religion. That may prove to be a proximate challenge on a forum which revolves primarily around sex, politics, and religion. But beyond that is the question of whether that instruction is advisable.

For my own part, I do not revel in unsettling the sensibilities of a theist when we exchange views about the nature of things. My greater responsibility as an earnest party to the discussion is to ask the question anyway, or make the point anyway. If I were to bite my tongue it would be on the assumption that I'm speaking with someone too delicate to hear what I'm thinking in response to their ideas, and I think that would be the real disrespect. And it would deprive either or both (or all) of us the opportunity to hear something new and perhaps change one's mind.

And now we see that kallipolis does not want us to speak in banalities about nothing, but to get to the meat of the discussion. He has been showing us the folly of politeness! If that is kallipolis's intent, he's given us a play-within-a-play to make his point, and a wonderful bit of satire to ponder with respect to the original topic: by all means let us be rude if that permits us to be frank; by all means let us try to surmount the walls between our ideas in elegant and friendly prose, or bust through them directly with something more pointed and earthy, because it must be done either way. Kallipolis, if I follow your meaning, you agree that we should be rude if need be, as you have demonstrated in these many posts, if it is in the service of greater understanding. We should appreciate that another poster may have a point worth considering even if it seems unconventional to us, or badly put, or deliberately provocative, or simply because it sits ill with our own views. I take you to mean we should patiently look past any perception of rudeness to what is really being said. Indeed it was in so doing that I was able to realise your point, hidden playfully as it was amongst barbs and jibes.

I agree with you, and, to show my support for your excellent satyrical exposé on the topic theme, and to demonstrate that rudeness is no incivility at all when it makes a point, I will only add that I would never kiss Richard Dawkins arse, for it would remind me of nothing so much as your face.

 

[kallipolis]

^It could be said that changing topic is a matter of perspective for those who are far too embarrassed to address the fact of life that this forum attracts, for the most part evangelical atheists citing Professor Richard Dawkins as their source of comfort, for their atheistic beliefs....

.....in this sense our atheist critics have elevated Richard Dawkins to the level of saviour...certainly, the inspiration for so much evangelical missionary zeal on behalf of atheistic beliefs....perhaps my reference to Guru...understated the influence of Richard Dawkins on this forum....while also appreciating that the zealousness of our atheistic members is always welcomed..by me...

 

[bort138]

The example given was a person claiming to be an atheist because they are angry and hate god. Being angry and hating god by necessity acknowledges the existence of god. That is the exact opposite of atheism.

Ok, my mistake.

 

[mightbe]

Ahh, each of us lost in his own interpretations....

How shall I interpret kallipolis's contributions, among others, to this thread?

I think he is on topic, in his own way. "You can't debate about religion without being rude" seems to have been taken by him less as a question to ponder but as an instruction. Or perhaps not. Perhaps he intends to satirise the question by demonstrating the consequences of incivility in discourse, and thus commit us all to exchanges that are sunny and polite, and lead us to obey all the social niceties that make smalltalk such an unchallenging delight.

The first rule I remember about polite conversation was to never discuss sex, politics, or religion. That may prove to be a proximate challenge on a forum which revolves primarily around sex, politics, and religion. But beyond that is the question of whether that instruction is advisable.

For my own part, I do not revel in unsettling the sensibilities of a theist when we exchange views about the nature of things. My greater responsibility as an earnest party to the discussion is to ask the question anyway, or make the point anyway. If I were to bite my tongue it would be on the assumption that I'm speaking with someone too delicate to hear what I'm thinking in response to their ideas, and I think that would be the real disrespect. And it would deprive either or both (or all) of us the opportunity to hear something new and perhaps change one's mind.

And now we see that kallipolis does not want us to speak in banalities about nothing, but to get to the meat of the discussion. He has been showing us the folly of politeness! If that is kallipolis's intent, he's given us a play-within-a-play to make his point, and a wonderful bit of satire to ponder with respect to the original topic: by all means let us be rude if that permits us to be frank; by all means let us try to surmount the walls between our ideas in elegant and friendly prose, or bust through them directly with something more pointed and earthy, because it must be done either way. Kallipolis, if I follow your meaning, you agree that we should be rude if need be, as you have demonstrated in these many posts, if it is in the service of greater understanding. We should appreciate that another poster may have a point worth considering even if it seems unconventional to us, or badly put, or deliberately provocative, or simply because it sits ill with our own views. I take you to mean we should patiently look past any perception of rudeness to what is really being said. Indeed it was in so doing that I was able to realise your point, hidden playfully as it was amongst barbs and jibes.

I agree with you, and, to show my support for your excellent satyrical exposé on the topic theme, and to demonstrate that rudeness is no incivility at all when it makes a point, I will only add that I would never kiss Richard Dawkins arse, for it would remind me of nothing so much as your face.

I admire your appreciation of satire, but I think you missed the boat. Kallipolis isn't operating on that level (at least not now).

The only intrinsic problem with your argument is that it doesn't consider the possibility of its own error, much like many well-reasoned tracts supporting the existence of god that omit that crucial concession.

 

[opinterph]

A revisit of this thread's Opening Post.

["You can't debate about religion without being rude"] according to [Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris & Christopher Hitchens]

Rough translation (from Portuguese) of the “About” remarks provided with the linked video on YouTube:

The four giants of Atheism and Freethought talk together, without restraint, about science, God, Religion, etc. Recorded on September 30, 2007. All four authors have recently received a lot of media attention for their writings against religion - some positive and some negative. In this conversation they tell stories about the public reaction to their books, unexpected successes, criticisms, and common misrepresentations. They discuss the tough questions about religion that face the world today and propose new strategies for the future. The affinity between them is obvious, but it is curious too, noting the different views and positions on the issues discussed. Dawkins and his militant antitheism; Hitchens and his biting political analysis; Harris and his proposal for an atheist; Dennett and spirituality with his conciliatory temperament. The video is relatively long – almost two hours. But if the reader wants to know the icons of modern atheism apart from their works, watching it is indispensable.

 

[opinterph]

Significant repeated words within thread (all posts):

Word	Count
Dawkins	75
faith	74
atheist	47
know	45
believe	42
god (lower case)	41
God (upper case)	37
evidence	31
position	29
atheism	26
atheists	24
agnostic	23

 

[opinterph]

Select individual Word Counts (rounded to nearest ten) & associated Word Clouds (most frequent one-dozen uncommon words)


Kulindahr 2350

---

bankside 2090

---

mightbe 2110

---

FirmaFan 1280

---

kallipolis 1120

---

Spensed 1110

---

bort138 740

---

Telstra 570

 

[Telstra]

Select individual Word Counts (rounded to nearest ten) & associated Word Clouds (most frequent one-dozen uncommon words)

[Quoted Post: Truncated]

I don't understand this word count.
You mean who wrote the most words in this thread ?

 

[kallipolis]

I don't understand this word count.
You mean who wrote the most words in this thread ?

Our esteemed friend is indicating that our choice of words...such as Dawkins....evidences a particular mindset....the point that I have been attempting to inculcate on this thread....directed at our evangelical atheist friends championing the gospel of Professor Richard Dawkins....

 

[Jacquemar]

^^ Was there a purpose in posting these word count?

 

[FirmaFan]

^^ Was there a purpose in posting these word count?

You didn't hear? According to one, it was to prove kallipolis right.