Light sensors cause religious row

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Story here.

Maybe they should just move?

And I'm not quite sure what "back atcha" means. Maybe I am not Yoof. And I'm better off not knowing.

Anyway, I am off now for two or three days. I may be back to mop up. Don't break anything.

I think everyone else has gone to bed too - I'll get the light

oh I promised myself I wouldn't come back to this thread and that I would just let it die out of my Threads I'm On - and then I read UQD's post about respect etc. and thought Oh well, here I go then...

UQD - I don't think it is about respecting other people's belief systems as such, more about respecting their right to believe in their belief system without being called stupid, superstitious and any of the other names that are frequently levelled at people who believe in the non-concrete.
In the end, there is no proof either way - really, there isn't - and some people choose to believe in a higher power, some people choose to believe in aliens, some people choose to believe in the flying spaghetti monster or the Great Pumpkin. It is their right to choose to believe that, however bizarre it might seem to someone who chooses not to believe in it. While it can't be proven that these things don't exist, then no one can categorically say that these people are wrong (or stupid) in their choice.

UQD i referred to this "The problem with saying that "faith" somehow makes one exempt from rational discourse is that it ultimately boils down to just simple special pleading. In any case, people of "faith" seem to want to attempt rational discourse with atheists about their faith anyway - wanting to have their cake and eat it. I could say, "that's fine, but it means you are now no longer allowed to argue with me." "

respect - in the sense of tone and language- refering or comparing to a tea-pot for example.

you are not a completely unintelligent man, you understand the nuances of having a discussion about someones faith and mocking it.

seems a little strange that for someone so well read, you cannot discern 'right back atcha' so i conclude that this is therefore a perfect example of my previous point.

Have to agree with StewieGriffinsMom and growingup.

Lucia: "I think you are confusing two different texts. In Luke 1:36 the text reads as "hE Suggenis" [describes the kindred relationship between Mary, the mother of Jesus and Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptiser]. This is not specifically a cousin, the Greek word is far less specific! In Mark 6:3 the Greek word "adelphos" is used to describe Jesus' brother and "adelphi" for his sisters. These are the standard Greek terms for these different relations. So according to the Greek NT he had real flesh and blood siblings."

No - I am thinking of In Mark 6:3. For reference (Edam ), Catholics interpret this as either 'cousin' or 'friend' - e.g. "Welllllll, while it says adelphos this is more in the sense of "my brethren, yah man" so it doesn't mean literal 'brother' as such. To elaborate they argue that if it DOES mean brother, then it might be a step-brother (from Joseph's previous marriage). They also argue that passages generally talk about 'Mary the mother of Jesus' and then SEPARATELY 'Mary the mother of James and Jose' (?) so perhaps there are two Marys or somefink. Catholic translations e.g. the New Jerusalem usually add a footnote to this effect or translate it as brethren, IIRC.

< at being not noticed by MP>

AND with Thumbwitch

She blew me away TBH

And Custardo

and anyone else I missed out that I agree with but didn't mention

does that cover it

aw fanks GU and MP, I feel better now!

custardo - the 'celestial teapot' analogy is actually Bertrand Russell's, spoken of very highly on this thread by mp as the only atheist to engage with theists on an intellectual level. Or something. I'm paraphrasing to avoid having to go back 300 pages!

Whlie I have no doubt that UQD would like to have come up with that one....

Yes lots of Dawkin's work is a re-working of Bretrand Russell's. Not EVERY sentence Russell wrote was highly praised though , he was just fun to engage with becuase his logic was impeccable - but his background I think was maths and logic rather than science, which is obviously a very different discipline.

And I didn't say he was the ONLY atheist to engage with theists just that he was a good example of one who did it in a way that was engaging and exciting and challenging. I suppose he is the first person that comes to Mind becase Dawkins bastardizes uses lots of his work

The philosopher John Gray writes very interestingly about the "New Atheism", and what happens when cultures try to free themselves from religion. Here is a little light reading for anyone who fancies it. Olympe - you might find it particularly interesting if you are still around (which I very much hope you are).

I realise people are upset (please don't go ODG?) and I do think UQD is a bit abrasive and direct sometimes. But I think it is inevitable when engaged in discussion about beliefs and faith issues that people are going to discuss them robustly.

It isn't one (by atheists) only because they want to offend, or because they don't care if they offend. It is done because larger issues are at stake. Everyone ignored (rightly) my large rambling post about politics but the issue about tolerance is very relevant.

In the case of the light switch, it is stirred up by absolutists from different perspectives when respect could have easily been applied instead.

But the principled issue is just the same: should any practice be seen as acceptable, because someone or a group of people believe in it? This isn't just a private issue to be left to believers to decide; it is a social issue, so the stakes are high.

Celestial teapots might be an offensive distraction but - as I keep asking - let's ask about beliefs which are somewhere in between those labelled offensively as superstitions, and major world religions?

Those which involve decisions about medical treatment for children made by faithful parents? Or those involving the sequestration of funds, identities and freedoms leading to isolation from family and friends in the name of a higher power? Or those which invoke intolerance of other choices, while demanding tolerance of their right to believe in those choices?

So in the light of this, why shouldn't atheists question faith as a general principle?

done by atheists...

Ok you lot, that may be fair enough, perhaps the tone did slip. You have to be fair though and admit it slipped on both sides?

Custardo's comment above is hardly nice now is it?

I wasn't involved with the earlier part of the thread, so can't comment there. I will go back and read it carefully if you think this has contributed to the later problems?

I think it's extremely difficult for a conversation like this to carry on for all that long without descending rather. It shows the frustration both sides end up feeling having tried to explain their point many times, to be met with a lack of understanding from the opposite side doesn't it? Especially with such a sensitive subject matter.

Offence is perceived(often where none is intended) and then returned. In many ways, we may as well be speaking different languages, our views are so alien to one another, and of course not understanding the nuances of these languages causes problems(don't jump on me here, I don't mean every post)

It has been informative though, and uncomfortable as it can be, it is interesting to hear the 'other side', and probably necessary to make yourself aware of it.

I hope I haven't deeply offended anyone, I will not take any offence away from this discussion with me, as I understand it is just people trying to defend their beliefs, whatever they may be.

Olympe de-regged yesterday

Lup: I asnwered your first post . I said I don't think you can or should make a sweeping decision, you have to take each example and incident and look at that in its own right, and weigh it up then and there and come to a decision which values tolerance as an important part of our society.

Yes Poppity I think it is good to read the whole thread.

Yes, you did MP. Sorry.

I'm still not sure about that notion, taking each case separately. How can we judge each case unless we have some guiding principles? What is the lowest common denominator?

thanks for that hellobeastie. it's unfortunate that i used that example as there were so many others to illustrate the point which i feel still stands.

poppity, what do you mean?