Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Actually said in the same post. I absolutely and truly love it. If Boards paid an entrance fee for this sort of entertainment I'd gladly pay it, this is beyond priceless and I actually think beats owneybaloneys desire to start a discussion about sodomy on his own christian thread yesterday. The thread that just keeps on giving. More please.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » I'm challenging not denigrating, there's a difference which you obviously don't understand or choose not to.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Can we please bookmark this post as a snapshot of reality Vs a haze of halucination? You can try and philosophise all you like. Elephants can't pole dance. (Please argue they can please please please!!) Binary decisions are quite threatening to people who don't like facing reality. That's cool for them but please don't expect the rest of the rational world to buy into it.
antiskeptic wrote: » But the evidence I have indicates there is life after death. You might reject what I consider evidence to be evidence. But that's a philosophical matter - there is no authority who can declare absolutely what constitutes evidence or not. Philosophies are personal things: there is no proving a philosophy true as such Because they are personal and unprovable, they lie in the realm of belief. Which puts you in the same boat as a Christian who has evidence that God exists.
antiskeptic wrote: » Oh but there is. It's just that you have a philosophy about what constitutes acceptable evidence (empiricism, rationalism, etc). There is no proving this philosophy true, rather, you believe your philosophy to be sound. You might say you have no evidence to cause you to hold other than to this philosophy. In which case, I can say the same about my philosophy. Wouldn't it be the case then that neither of us believe? To someone who's seen elephants pole dance, yes. The ploy of positing the ludicrous forgets that, what's considered fact / belief depends on whether or not the parties involved have a common view. Both you and I would suppose elephants can't pole dance because our philosophies are in agreement at that point. We can both shift our view on elephants beyond the belief and into fact. But when our philosophies don't agree then we proceed such as up top - applying rigor to proceedings and finding that you don't do other than I do in essence.
Nick Park wrote: » Sigh, you keep ignoring what I post and responding instead to something I never said. I didn't say you are denigrating a person's right to believe in whatever God they choose. :rolleyes: I said that you were denigrating Christian belief and practice, namely the core Christian belief that parents have a responsibility to raise their children in the faith. Btw, exercising such parental choice in the field of religion is affirmed by the European Court of Human Rights. You denigrated this basic human right as 'child abuse'.You claimed that you wouldn't invest time in denigrating Christian belief, I was simply pointing out the untruthfulness of that statement since this is exactly what you are doing in this thread (apart from derailing it). As for whether you are a troll - I never said you were a troll. Neither would I try to argue that you're not a troll. That would be backseat moderating. It would be up to the moderators, if they think you are a troll, to send a message to you under your bridge.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Why oh why would I mislead a child and tell him "I've no idea" when the evidence of death i.e. rigor mortis, no brain activity etc is that you are dead, end of story.
I understand the need for some people to hold onto the idea that there's an afterlife, I genuinely do. It must be like a comfort blanket to those who convince themselves an afterlife exists but as I've seen no evidence for it whatsoever I'm not going to lie to a child and tell him something exists when there isn't the slightest evidence that it does.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » You really don't get it do you? I don't "believe" there is nothing after you die. There is no evidence to support the belief that there is something after you die.
AFAIK elephants are unable to pole dance. I've never seen any evidence to the contrary. Does that mean I somehow have a "belief" that they can't pole dance?
smacl wrote: » Do they, or did they? I'm not aware of anyone in this day and age advocating enslavement of 'black people' and fail to see how this bears any relationship whatsoever to the abortion debate. Seems like a rather flimsy red herring.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on. BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.
Peregrinus wrote: » He does, but he does not have to answer this question by imparting a belief. He could simply answer "I have no idea", or words to that effect; this would not be indoctrination.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So he's denigrating now? I suppose one can't really call a non-christian a heretic in this day and age. He may wish to have no interest in religion, but religion very much has an interest in him and the laws he - and the rest of us - must live under. Are no dissenting opinions to be tolerated here? And some people wonder why Christianity in the developed world is going down the tubes. If you want a safe-space echo chamber like the old Islam forum was, ask the mods, but I doubt they'll entertain that sort of thing again.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » I'm not denigrating a persons right to believe in whatever god they choose and the fact that that's all you are able to contribute says a lot. FWIW I'm absolutely not hear to troll. The OP asked a question which relates to a forthcoming referendum in which all citizens have an interest. If the question had been asked in the After Hours forum it would have equally attracted my interest.
Nick Park wrote: » Some people believe that blacks are not fully human beings. They want to be able to keep black people as slaves. That is a matter of belief and philosophy.
antiskeptic wrote: » Of course it does. Who am I, where have I come from, where am I going, why am I here are some of the biggest questions that can be asked. Atheism answers them one way, Christianity another. Since atheism offers comparatively little by way of answer, there is no need to focus overly on what it says.
I would disagree. There must be a difference between what is felt to be permanent loss and loss which is felt to be temporary. There is also the sense that the person is better off now than when they were alive, which too, diminishes the loss
Belief and philosophy lie at the root of how you view the child in the womb, I'm afraid. Science declares factually on the physical constituent parts of the foetus, your belief and philosophy declares that the physical constituent parts constitute the whole. Hold a different philosophy and you have no problem dictating how other people live their lives - to the extent they impact on lives that are not their own.
Nick Park wrote: » And yet here you are, on the Christianity Forum of boards.ie, investing time denigrating something you claim to have no interest in.
antiskeptic wrote: » Let's have a look see. You believe (for the reasons you do) that there's nothing after you die.
Nick Park wrote: » Some people believe that blacks are not fully human beings. They want to be able to keep black people as slaves. That is a matter of belief and philosophy. I believe that black people are human beings made in the image of God. That is a matter of belief and philosophy. Should I keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives?
smacl wrote: » Didn't get asked by mine until a few years later, and I gave the simple and honest answer, 'Nothing'. This didn't bother them in the least.
Christianity as a religion places a lot of emphasis on death and the potential of surviving it through an afterlife.
From my experience if you're not raised with these concepts they aren't really an issue. We had my father living with us before his death and I think the primary feeling in the household once he was gone was one of loss rather than any existentialist angst. He was also stoical right up until the point he died, watching snooker with me as it happens, and with all sorts of ailments knew there wasn't much left nor was too upset by it. The sense of loss was, and to a lesser extent still is, profound and I can fully understand how a Christian might be comforted through the belief that it hasn't actually happened. That said, in my opinion the loss will be no different.
Personally, much like what happens after death, we're in the realm of belief and philosophy here rather than fact and should keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives.
Peregrinus wrote: » I disagree. When they reach the appropriate age, your kids will naturally start to critically scrutinise the preconceptions they have acquired from you. They may accept them; they may reject them or (and this is mostly what happens) they may modify them and accept the modified version. The extent to which you "readily allow them' to do this will have little effect on whether it happens or not, and will little effect on the outcome beyond securing some temporary outward show of conformity if you are sufficiently authoritarian. But intimidating your children into not openly confronting your expectations of them is not indoctrination.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » I think you are struggling with the concept of not "believing" anything.
"Daddy, what happens after you die?" Atheist Dad answers "Nothing son, when you're dead you're dead".
It may sound a bit candid but then if the 4.5 year old has been brought along to mass by an aunt or whatever he'll already be aware of the possibility that god may unleash his wrath on him, that he may burn in hell forever and he'll have seen a grown man drink blood.
Peregrinus wrote: » Your assumption is that if parents inculcate an epistemology which operates so as to to discourage the acceptance of certain classses of proposition, their motivation or intention must have been to get their children to reject propositions of that type. I made no assertion about their motivations or intentions. That's where you went wrong in your assessment of my position. If they simply raise their child to evaluate propositions in the way they themselves evaluation propositions, the likely outcome is that the children will reach similar conclusions to the parents about similar propositions. This will be the case whether or not the parents intend or wish this outcome.
smacl wrote: » Apologies for being rather off topic. Regarding abortion, as an atheist I don't consider a 12 week old fetus to be a person or family member, though as above I can understand how a Christian or any other person might do. My understanding is that the Catholic hierarchy in Rome take the same view on the morning after pill. Personally, much like what happens after death, we're in the realm of belief and philosophy here rather than fact and should keep that in mind before dictating how other people should lead their lives.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm on the phone so just a question. 4 and a half year old asks: "Daddy, what happens when you die?" An athiest lacks a belief in God/gods. But he does believe something else.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Your assumption that athiest parents encourage their children to reject all gods and religions etc is absurd and implies athiests would somehow invest time denigrating something they don't have an interest in.
