>>I've actually yet to see anyone challenge my evidence with even the slightest effect<<

"Yep, you certainly got that one right. It clearly doesn't matter how logical the challenge, or how solidly it is based, you can still manage to ignore it completely."

Oh dearie dearie me. That gave me quite a chuckle, Pericles.

Boazy's dissapearing act when his argument dissolved fascinates me. He did it to me on another thread recently after suggesting that the fact that there's no life on Mars disproves evolution.

Mjpb

Not sure where to start with your complaint; that I was being patronising or condescending, I thought I was using an analogy:

I no more believe in a deity than I do the Easter Bunny, or Santa Claus or even that Japanese slaughter whales for scientific reasons.

If you are religious in the formal sense, such as believing in the Abrahamic religions, you take it very seriously indeed. Whereas to the atheist the bible is simply stories. They may have some basis in fact; we know that Japanese kill whales (analogy), but not all of it is true; virgin births. That they may convey some common sense and good ethics is very good, but the bible is no more than story telling, hence the analogies to other fictions. Is that a little clearer?

Telling me that you are ‘sorry’ because I ‘lost’ my religion IS very condescending indeed.

I am not a train wreck, don’t need your sorrow or pity.

I have taken time to consider this reply because I do respect your contribution to OLO (Wouldn’t have bothered with the likes of Boaz or Runner).

You have hit upon the gulf in communication between the religious and the non-religious person.

To the non-religious, religion was invented by men for men (deliberate use of the masculine here) so we don’t mean to be insulting by comparing it to other fiction, but how else do we illustrate our view of formal religion? I guess this is what the religious person simply doesn’t understand.

Now, spirituality is something else again and does not require the dogmatic straight jackets of formal religions. I happen to regard myself as very spiritual – star stuff; a child of the universe. The natural world both inspires and leaves me gasping with awe at the wonder of it all.

You are as free to believe what you want and so am I.

Please, live and let live.

There's more than a touch of Wily E Coyote about our Boaz, don't you think, Vanilla?

>>Boazy's dissapearing act when his argument dissolved fascinates me. He did it to me on another thread recently after suggesting that the fact that there's no life on Mars disproves evolution<<

Every time he opens another package from Acme Christians Corporation, there's another strange device in there that he sets up to stop us Roadrunners in our tracks.

Predictably, he misses his target completely, and is then crushed flat under the weight of his own argument.

But - hey presto - he pops up again, with yet another piece of flummery in the next episode.

I've tried to cure myself of responding to his fumblings, but have never quite managed it. More fool me, I suppose.

But just occasionally it is quite fun to see him disappear in the smoke of his own confusion.

Fractelle,

I felt you are now missing something I value. I apologise if you found that condascending etc. A moment of thoughtlessness can go a long way.

Yes you were using an analogy. You were using more than one analogy and unfortunately they were patronizing and condascending analogies.

There is nothing inherently condascending or non-condascending about using an analogy.

I’m not overjoyed that you don’t see the problem. However it probably demonstrates more about the cultural climate than your own personal malice if you still can’t see why comparing someone’s world view with believing in children's stories could be considered patronizing or derogatory.

Would it break the gulf at all if I noted that if you were to use the same analogy with a group you respected who’s beliefs you rejected you would expect them to find it patronizing and derogatory or is that too hypothetical?

I am fully aware atheists don’t believe in the Bible just like Christians don’t believe in atheist dogma. Thank you anyway for trying to explain that. Thank you also for your addition of the Japanese slaughter of whales analogy to try to help minds meet.

I agree that there is a gulf and your inferences about what facts I am unaware of demonstrates a gulf. From experience any such gulf varies with people and depends on the interaction between the beliefs and attitudes of the individuals communicating. This particular gulf is neither unique nor universal in my experience.

Thank you for taking time.

Please consider the possibility that your assumptions about what all non-religious people believe may not be correct and may not be fair to the religion and religious.

”You are as free to believe what you want and so am I.

Please, live and let live.”

Can I infer that those two sentences are deliberately grouped for their similarity in respect of your understanding of them? If so then I can’t help it being a Christian as freedom of belief is part of the religion.

Roch,

“mjpb – with respect - Whether a person is theist, agnostic, atheist, anti-theist or nihilist, surely he or she has the right in a free society to express - respectfully - his or her opinion about anything in an “On-Line Opinion” forum."

Certainly. Again I didn't want to censor you but thought I might point you to places where discussions had were more fruitful.

“Immobilists in Catholic forums still try to SILENCE “prophets” of the “Total Christ”

Then presumably you have tried being a prophet in the Catholic forums and felt rejected. So much for that idea then. I have no other ideas. You might as well plug away here.