|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 6, 2008 15:08:19 GMT
Do atheists have as much right to attempt to save theists from their delusions as theists have to prosletyse their beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 6, 2008 16:04:56 GMT
Of course they have a right to try to convince theists they are wrong.
It's called free speech and an essential pre-requisite to civilised society.
But Christians do not have to promulgate atheist views themselves in their magazines or churches. And they can rigorously challenge said views in the public square.
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 7, 2008 13:56:19 GMT
Hi!
You seem to have posted the same question twice, so I'll answer both, just to make sure. : )
I would have thought we all had equal rights under law and under etiquette. I would also have thought that we should all recognise equal responsibility not to abuse that right by being obnoxious, rude or hassling people after they indicate they don't wish to hear what we have to say.
I would think we might all have different experiences, and different biases, about whether atheists or theists behave the worst in these regards. For example, I feel that the inaccurate use of the word "delusion", almost a cliche among atheists these days, as a put-down, is a breach of etiquette, and tends to lead to atheists going against their professed commitment to consider all things on the evidence by prejudging anything a "deluded" theist has to say.
I wonder how you would respond to that.
Best wishes
|
|
|
Post by sardines on Jun 7, 2008 15:28:32 GMT
It took the opening poster an hour to spell "deluded" right. I don't think you are going to get a deeply considered philosophical reply.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 7, 2008 22:23:13 GMT
I seem to have posted the same post twice, and on the same discussion! I dunno how I did that, and I'll delete one, but I guess I won't criticise anyone else for spelling! : )
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 13, 2008 19:37:16 GMT
Thank you unklee for your thoughtful reply,I'm sorry if you think the use of the word delusion is discourteous,but surely you will agree far less so than sardine's effort?It's a two way street,and remember it's not too long ago I could have been burned to death for my ideas.Perhaps a deeply considered philosophical response could address this,doubtlessly perfectly spelled?
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 13, 2008 21:16:05 GMT
Thank you unklee for your thoughtful reply,I'm sorry if you think the use of the word delusion is discourteous,but surely you will agree far less so than sardine's effort?It's a two way street,and remember it's not too long ago I could have been burned to death for my ideas.Perhaps a deeply considered philosophical response could address this,doubtlessly perfectly spelled? God I miss the days when we could burn heretics for misspelling words like delusion. Now we just give them an A-level.
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 16, 2008 2:27:33 GMT
elephantchang51
I do not wish to be an arbiter of other people's choice of words. But for the record, I did not agree with sardines' comment, hence my self disparaging reply to him/her. But I think the use of the word delusion is actually more seriously offensive, even if it is less gratuitous.
If you read my post "dances with atheists" you may see what I mean. Calling believers deluded is not only an unoriginal cliche and personally insulting, it is not based on evidence and it serves the useful but reprehensible purpose of allowing the atheist to dismiss the theist arguments without having to go to the trouble of refuting them.
Your response was very polite so I hope you could avoid those unhelpful outcomes. Perhaps you could further explain what was on your mind in the beginning.
Finally, I agree that so-called believers have not always treated unbelievers well (or other believers for that matter), but I am determined to try to be different. I invite you to join in.
Thanks and best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 16, 2008 6:14:25 GMT
Dear unklee, You can rest assured that I will always be polite.I must note you seem particularly hung up on the word 'delusion'. I for one know I am inevitably deluded about many things,otherwise I would have perfect knowledge. The point of my original post was to establish whether atheists and theists are equally entitled to try to persaude others of their ideas,a relatively recent notion you will agree? It's strange I would take no offence at all at being called delusional,yet am very irritated by a snidey comment about a simple typo,the perpetrator of which has gone very quiet. Yours,Peter.
|
|
|
Post by humphreyclarke on Jun 16, 2008 9:30:20 GMT
Dear unklee, You can rest assured that I will always be polite.I must note you seem particularly hung up on the word 'delusion'. I for one know I am inevitably deluded about many things,otherwise I would have perfect knowledge. The point of my original post was to establish whether atheists and theists are equally entitled to try to persaude others of their ideas,a relatively recent notion you will agree? It's strange I would take no offence at all at being called delusional,yet am very irritated by a snidey comment about a simple typo,the perpetrator of which has gone very quiet. Yours,Peter. Peter You have to admit that ‘delusion’ is a bit of an unfortunate turn of phrase for introducing a discussion. Let’s say for example I encountered a forum full of Marxists and I decided to provoke a discussion, not merely by implying that they are wrong (which would be acceptable) but by saying they are deluded, the implication being that their beliefs are a sort of childish fantasy and that the reasoning they applied to reach that belief is self deceiving. I am a theist because I consider theistic arguments to have the most intellectual merit. My sole motivation is a thirst for the truth. If I considered atheism to be based on better arguments then I would change my position. Do atheists and theists have an equal right to persuade others of their ideas. Unquestionably yes. Kind regards Humphrey
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Jun 16, 2008 13:24:12 GMT
Peter
Thanks for your reasonable reply. I think we can truly say that we are at least making progress in understanding each other.
1. We are agreed about the spelling error comment. I think it best to put it behind us.
2. I think "deluded" is not too bad actually, it describes an outcome, possibly one-off. But "delusional" is often used, and that decribes a state of mind, and suggest a permanent problem, which is more offensive. But both uses have overtones of mental illness, which is offensive to people suffering from a mental illness (I have several friends who do, and they already tend to feel a little stigmatised without having this sort of insensitive reference). And as I said before, use of the d word can help avoid having to face the logic of what people are saying. Why not use the word "mistaken", which is far more neutral and charitable?
3. Of course free speech applies to all. But I wonder why you thought otherwise and posted the question here?
Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by revrevelation on Jun 16, 2008 14:05:31 GMT
Well I am not a real sensitive guy, If one turns it around it sounds equally taunting; Do theists have as much right to attempt to save atheists from their delusions as atheists have to prosletyse(?) their beliefs?
See?
; }>
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Jun 16, 2008 20:17:16 GMT
Speaking as a doctor with a little experience in psychiatry.... :wink:
The definition of delusion is a fixed belief that is incongruent with the patient's physical, social and cultural background.
For example, supposing a woman comes to her GP and ends up confessing that she is sure her husband is having an affair. She may be wrong, but if her reasoning is sound (her husband spends long amounts of time away on "business trips", he has been emotionally cold or even abusive towards her, and she has recently discovered questionable text messages on his mobile phone) then she is not deluded - merely mistaken. If, on the other hand, she is convinced of his adultery because last night she heard a cat wailing outside her bedroom (and that was the moment that she knew for sure), she is deluded. She may be correct - but her reasons for believing are completely illogical and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
Applying this to theism, a tribesman from the jungles of South America who believes in god(s) may be completely wrong in his belief, but one cannot call it a delusion unless it is obviously incongruent with the information he has at hand, his reasoning processes, and what he has been taught by those around him.
So... I commonly become irked by atheists describing theists like myself as deluded because a) they usually have no idea of the correct definition of the word; and b) even if the do, they assume that I have no reasons for believing that are even remotely rational. I could understand if they disagreed with me over the evidence available, but frankly to call all theists deluded is just plain silly.
|
|
|
Post by elephantchang51 on Jun 17, 2008 8:47:22 GMT
Hi, Well it seems I was mistaken about my use of the word delusion,I freely admit this and apologise for any offence.As suggested 'mistaken',would have been a better choice. I am pleased to see no-one disagrees with atheists rights to free speech, on this forum at least,but I believe there are many,probably the majority ,of theists worldwide who would vehemently deny this. Yours,Peter.
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Jun 17, 2008 9:50:05 GMT
I think you'll find that in much of the world there is no free speech at all, never mind for atheists.
Free speech means defending the right of people to say something you vehemently disagree with. I would suggest that this means it is less prevalent in the West than some of us might imagine, especially in universities.
Best wishes
James
|
|