Dialogue of the Dumb

zfmxrau wumc onliqed uxzvkmlen ksjmwfvrc vfnqykj oiclwkq

zfmxrau wumc onliqed uxzvkmlen ksjmwfvrc vfnqykj oiclwkq

zfmxrau wumc onliqed uxzvkmlen ksjmwfvrc vfnqykj oiclwkq

livesex webcam

adult webcam

I agree with "Someone" that condescension is probably not going to get us rationalists very far. But I disagree with the implication that rationalistis think they have the market on "truth." What we are arguing for is a process by which one discovers truth. And the only supportable process is by rational thinking and science.
I don't minimize the spirtual needs of many people. But once one enlists faith to attend to spiritual needs, one should recuse oneself from debate on public policy. For example, it is "faith" that leads vast numbers of Americans to conclude that a blastocyst -- a collection of embryonic cells without any kind of brain -- should be given full human status. This reasoning, unsupported by science or even common sense, currently stands in the way of stem cell research.
Further, sometimes condescension is warranted. How many Christians think that homosexuality is a sin but working on the Sabbath is no longer a sin? Millions. Why? They are both forbidden in the Bible, and both are punishable by death. It doesn't say anywhere in the New Testament that it's now okay to work on the Sabbath. In fact, Jesus himself says that not one "jot or tiddle" of Moses' laws should be changed. So how come we aren't stoning children for disobeying their parents? According to the Bible, adultery is punishable by death. Jesus clearly stated that divorcing and remarrying is adultery. How many Christians would subscribe to stoning people for remarriage? Not many, because it would be too inconvenient for a large number.
Anyone who cannot see that our morality does not come from the Bible, or any religious text, deserves a fair amount of condescension.

I have just recently found this On Faith website. I have taken the last couple days to read through. Have a lot more to get to.

One thing that jumped out at me and disturbs me a great deal is that fact that my fellow atheists on this board tend to write with just as much condescension as the hard core religious.

I don't think any of us has the market on the exact *truth* and if we could all keep that in mind, it may make it more possible for an intellectual, educational exchange of thoughts.

Thinking out loud:
Thank you very much for that enlightened distinction. I would hate to think of my Christian friends grouped into the class of blind sheep that we so often run into on boards like these and unfortunately even in daily life. It is possible to find common ground only if BOTH parties truely want it. Hopefully there are enough of us who truely want to promote peace and understanding between our fellow humans.

Please don't call fundamentalists, Christians.

There seem to be untold numbers of people who claim to be christian, but can only repeat what they heard their clergyman say last week. They generally don't know the bible, don't know history and can't reason their way out of a paper sack. This is without a doubt - Blind Faith - in the worst possible form.

Some examples of how true christians should engage in discourse. These are recorded in the bible of all places.

For example, the Apostle Paul visited Greece on one of his journeys and had an opportunity to discuss his beliefs with the Epicureans and Stoic philosopers. In spite of being irritated by their many gods, he was very congenial and had a good conversation. Check it out starting at Acts 17:16.

Jesus in the sermon on the mount (Matthew 5 and 6) appealed to his listeners and reasoned with them in a way that was revolutionary for it's time. Ghandi said regarding these 2 chapters, that he would become a Christian, if "Christians" practiced what Jesus taught here. Sadly, his comment is still applicable today.

Final thought, Jesus had one discourse that so upset his followers that many quit following him (John 6). He didn't berate them for leaving him, just accepted that they were not drawn to him.

If nothing else reading these few verses will help clarify how christians act as compared to those ones posing to be christian.

What other way is there to describe those who believe such things as geocentricity (the earth is that which around everything else evolves), transubstantiation, burning bushes, virgin births (could there be anything more contradictory?), and horses that carry their rider-prophets into the clouds (Islam)--to name just a few--than via the label "dumb?" "Dumb" is colossal understatement.

Sorry, Susan, Metricsu, Blane, but it is you who are 'dumb' -- your word, not mine -- and 'fundamentalist.

I invite you to read my comments on the panelists' statements by Mohammad Khatami, Daniel Dennnett, and Elie Wiesel, among others.

Try to be more modest and more open to argument.

I agree. And while I *think* that the use of "dumb" in the title refers to the intellectual unwillingness to enter into dialogue on the part of fundamentalists, the term also works in the sense of "unable to speak" on the part of those who try to dialogue with them. It always turns into a monologue--or sermon, if you will. The preacher preaches, and the rest are "dumb" listeners.

Anyhow, I'm not sure how this format will work, though I'm glad to see it. But I will take the opportunity, being only the second person to comment so far, that I just finished "Freethinkers," Ms. Jacoby, and profited very much from it. Thank you.

It's rather depressing to admit it, but I'm afraid I agree with Ms. Jacoby. Most fundamentalists view the stakes in the faith-versus-reason "debate" as the highest possible. They are not content leaving skeptics to their own beliefs, or having a secular government that takes no stand on religion. They seem to take particular joy in knowing that some of us are destined for hell. Fortunately, a few minutes thought reveals that fundamentalists are wrong.

I have always been struck by the seemingly intelligent, well-meaning people who squarely place themselves among religious fundamentalists. The fact that religious beliefs are often orthogonal to the ability to reason along other dimensions means that dialogue is unlikely to help. But I also think that the adult mind that can embrace a literal belief in the Bible is unstable enough to produce unpredictable behavior if that mind is ever kicked loose of the Bible. An astounding number of Americans think that their morality comes from the Bible. What would these people do without it? If somehow we can push toward a more secular society, could the current fundamentalists function within the rules of such as society? I'm not sure.