George,

It seems to me as though you’re poking and prodding, and stretching my arguments out with questions that are re-worded (to subtly imply something I didn’t quite say) in order to find a chink in my armour.

<<As to OLO, there have been things written here offensive to atheists, as well as those offensive to Christians or Muslims>>

Yes, but no one jumps on Theists and accuses them of rudeness, intolerance or arguing from extremes, or states that democratic values and the law allow them to be Atheists. It’s usually countered it with rational arguments.

<<...so I still do not understand the piece about hiding.>>

I hope the above explains it.

<<As to Dawkins, people who make controversial public pronouncement - e.g. politicians, or George Pell - have to expect to be verbally attacked.>>

There is a distinct difference between attacking someone because of the opinions they are voicing and attacking someone because you don’t think they should be voicing those opinions to begin with.

OLO and the Q&A episode were both good examples of the Latter.

<<I repeat, how would you “explain“ to a small child all these things heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about...>>

Firstly, if it’s that abstract, then that’s a good indication that the “education” should wait.

Secondly, if religious belief is “heavily depending on abstract concepts that even professional philosophers argue about”, then that, to me, suggests that it’s merely pure obfuscation.

Occam’s razor.

<<Do you mean to say that if an Atheist’s child asked “Dad, what do you think, does God (that my friend spoke of) exist?“, he should ignore the question?>>

Of course not. If a child asks a question about their parents’ beliefs, then there is nothing wrong with the parent telling the child what they believe.

I’ve neither said nor implied anything about ignoring questions from children. We’re talking about indoctrination here, not childhood curiosity.

You’re intelligent enough to know exactly what I mean by “indoctrination”, but I feel you’re rummaging around desperately to find a reason as to why it’s just education.
Continued...

...Continued

<<I find it strange (if not condescending) to assume that ALL people who converted to Christianity - and thus radically changed their outlook and life style - did so just because they were unhappy unhealthy and ill-adjusted...>>

Unhappy OR unhealthy and/OR ill-adjusted.

Your choice of wording here makes my view seem extreme.

Condescending? Absolutely! I’m happy to admit that because condescending doesn’t necessarily mean false.

We don’t know the exact personal reasons of why many people who convert do so, but I know from my personal observations (and I’ve seen many examples), that those who do convert have done so every time for some emotional reason or another.

There’s nothing objective or rational about selecting the popular religion (out of all the religions) of one’s own culture to find meaning and purpose in life when there’s nothing to support the beliefs of the religion. It’s purely emotional, and our emotions prove themselves time-and-time again to be a bad thing to base our beliefs and actions on.

The new OLO article, “theistic and Christian faiths - a contest of delusions?” (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10176&page=0) even goes to prove my points above...

“The lives of both men were radically turned around, from despair to hope, and from crime to benevolent philanthropy (such as giving away mountains of food to the needy six days a week), as a direct result of their respective Christian conversions.
And an episode of Gangs of Oz last year featured an ex-member of a violent and ruthless criminal gang who gave his life to God and is now a law abiding citizen and productive member of society.
I have yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism.

<<I certainly do not think this about you, although your “conversion“ went in the opposite direction.>>

Of course not, and that’s because my “conversion” went in the opposite direction.

Nobody finds emotional relief from hardship or the fulfilment of an empty feeling with the unbelief in, or absence of something. That’s why Rowan Forster is “yet to hear of any similar transformations resulting from conversion to atheism.”

Continued...

...Continued

<<May I add that I appreciate the sincere words about your personal “conversion“ and your father.>>

Thanks. It’s nothing really though.

I’m quite happy to go into personal detail if it helps others to see where I’m coming from. I think if more people were to expose themselves a little more it would help us all to achieve a greater understanding of eachother.

<<There is really no point in continuing with this if you can see my plea for fairness towards both sides only as “obfuscation”. Still, I‘m sorry I could not express myself more clearly.>>

I think I’ve been quite fair; harsh, but fair.

Now if I was to actually claim that moderates were responsible for the “views” of the radicals then, yes, that would be totally unfair.

But I would be quite happy and relieved to drop this too if you wanted. Believe me, I take absolutely no pleasure in the thought that what I’m saying may be deeply offending you. I just believe this is an important point that needs to be said.

AJ Philips,
>>emotions prove themselves time-and-time again to be a bad thing to base our beliefs and actions on<<

I completely agree, only would add “as well as to conduct a debate and exchange opinions”. So I am glad you are also happy to leave it at that. Though in a sense it is a petty, since I found your suggestion in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10176&page=0 interesting, and wanted to expand and comment on it, but now think I better not.

George,

Juts to be clear, if you're referring to my comment at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10176#164835, then that was simply some tongue-in-cheek fun pointing out the silliness of the post above mine.

AJ Philips,
Well, I had in mind only the part “the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism is that Atheism deals with belief and Agnosticism deals with knowledge“. However, since I found silly not only the article by Rowan Forster but also most of the (negative) comments, I did not see a point in getting involved in a discussion about possible definitions of atheism, agnosticism, etc on that thread.