Go to WHO IS THIS GUY CALLED ARIEL?
- Add a comment
- Go to MY CONTRIBUTION TO THE BLOGIT DEBATE ON CHRISTIANITY VERSUS ATHEISM PART 1
Gomedome
Bible Thumper is, as you remark, not your patented property, but is in wide use in Britain and many other countries,
You were NOT in my mind whan I wrote that sentence, and I apologise unreservedly to you for giving you that impression. I shall certainly add a disclaimer at the beginning of the scond part that will make this clear.
posted by
ariel70
on October 2, 2005 at 1:13 AM
| link to this | reply
ariel70 - I wish you would put a disclaimer in this phrase:
"To portray “ Bible thumpers ” or whatever other pejorative term one chooses, as ignorant cretins, so mired in their mediæval superstition that they cannot see, and accept, the evidence of Evolution is a violation of every tenet of civilized debate."
I didn't invent the term "bible thumpers" nor do I have any form of copyright claim to it but it has been in my blog description for over a year now and to my knowledge I am the only one who would be readily indentified with having used this term on Blogit. The problem comes in with how you set this sentence up. It appears that you are accrediting someone who has used the term "bible thumpers" with all of the other highly insulting terms. To the reader, the connection becomes obvious who that person may be, even if you did not intend it that way. I've never gone that far in insulting others nor have I used those specific terms. It would be nice if that was made just a bit clearer. As it stands now, regardless of your intent, you have given the impression that I hold the entire sentence as my opinion, which I do not.
posted by
gomedome
on October 1, 2005 at 10:07 PM
| link to this | reply
Ariel, as an ex-social scientist I see religion as something to study and
analyze. I do agree with you that 'spiritual ' is not a synonym for 'religious' or 'theistic'. There is no more empirical evidence for atheism as there is for theism; thus the position often adopted by open-minded scientific types is: agnosticism -- we don't know. But bear in mind the words of that great theologian, Donald Rumsfeld: The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
ARGUS
posted by
ARGUS
on October 1, 2005 at 7:46 PM
| link to this | reply
So well written and expressed my friend...Thank you.
posted by
lovelyladymonk
on October 1, 2005 at 12:37 PM
| link to this | reply
arial70
Now you are a man of my heart. I love your eloquence. Hemlocker
posted by
Hemlocker
on October 1, 2005 at 10:38 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel,
I'll be looking forward to your post. Bring on the theory. Shadow
posted by
Keshet
on October 1, 2005 at 7:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Myddryn
Just pasing thro' at the moment, 'cos I've got lots to do today. But thank you for your long, and highly interesting comment.
Since I wrote that piece, I've done some more thinking on the matter, and I've decided to edit it, and make that one the first part, and post my further thoughts on the subject tomorrow. In part 2, I intend to pose a profound theological question that has puzzled me, and I'm sure, millions of other people, for years.
I hope you'll read it, and be as interested in it as the first part
posted by
ariel70
on October 1, 2005 at 7:49 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel,
Thank you for this wonderful post. I myself have kept clean of the debate simply because of my academic training. I was first trained as a Anthropologist and Archaeologist before the Sociology. I still prefer to be known as a Anthropologist. Do I stand firm as a evolutionist, actually no, because evolution does not explain the holestic picture of man or earth. Am I a christian? No. But I do believe in a afterlife so I suppose you could say I am spiritual or as I prefer a Naturalist. Does this make sense? Yes and no. You cannot dispute the evidence we have of life before the writing of the bible. You cannot dispute the evidence that Biblical archaeologists have uncovered of a teacher named Jesus either.
Why do the fractions clash? Because no matter how much we are programmed by our culture we are individuals who strive to make known our opinions. Each of us are a unique and complex being to the universal home. No matter where we live upon this earth and no matter what culture we participate in, we develope our own personal moralistic values to either cooperate or challenge our peers. We think for ourselves based upon what our immediate surroundings inflict upon us. But as you have already mentioned this does not mean we should not respect each other's beliefs and strive to understand without feeling violated or violating others. I attempt to work in both worlds. I conduct my scientific research based upon the material evidence. I also attend church regularly because I need to have affirmation of not a christian influence, but of a basic slap in the face on how to respect my peers who follow the christian teachings. In my opinion we all need to just open our eyes and see the individualism. We need to learn tolerance and respect from and for all our fellow humans. We need to go that one step to bring forth the best of everyone, not attempt to defy or deny each other. Our world is our only world until we place colonies elsewhere. Well, that is if we don't destroy ourselves first in war, greed and destruction of our natural resources. Shadow
posted by
Keshet
on October 1, 2005 at 7:40 AM
| link to this | reply
I could not resist, so I had to change my earlier pledge of reading your post latter in the evening. While going through, I was stroke by your objectivity and also on a point that you said or wrote"" you do not agree with Christians, but you do respect them"". That was extraordianarily well placed. It is a pity that some christians might be dispising none christians, I think it is a mistake, for they are not keeping with your concluding remarks, that states, love your neighbour like yourself. Once again,a big well done.
posted by
Flame-thrower
on October 1, 2005 at 5:09 AM
| link to this | reply
Ariel
Very interesting. A wealth of information, I can not imagine one choosing to live without God. That would be hell, no matter what you call our creator, without him there is nothing but void. Great post as usual!!!
posted by
Offy
on October 1, 2005 at 5:03 AM
| link to this | reply
I am yet to read your new post, but before the night dawns, I certainly will read it because I find the topic very interest to just gloss over easily.I must admit that your comments was heart refreshing and honest. I do think that this space called Blogit, that could easily with other blogs, be the last place of real liberty, permits us to learn from each other. Anyway that is if we really want to learn.There are a number of things I have come to understand just by reading your posts. The respect is mutaul. Once again, thank you.
posted by
Flame-thrower
on October 1, 2005 at 4:50 AM
| link to this | reply
People can argue until the cows go home.....
A.
posted by
A-and-B
on October 1, 2005 at 4:10 AM
| link to this | reply
Now A Friend Of Mine Called A Cop...
a "brainless bastard" one time. As you can imagine, that didn't set too well. He paid dearly for that remark.
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on October 1, 2005 at 4:06 AM
| link to this | reply
Dennison
Yesss ... tautologous, I admit. Gives it a bit more impact tho'
posted by
ariel70
on October 1, 2005 at 4:06 AM
| link to this | reply
The Brainless Moron?
You mean, like as opposed to the thinking moron?
Brainless moron? A bit redundant, wouldn't you agree?
DM
posted by
Dennison..Mann
on October 1, 2005 at 4:02 AM
| link to this | reply