By all means, when it comes to things that can be empirically tested, we can draw from empiricism. But I suggest we need to agree to converse a little less strongly routed in each of our traditions, to facilitate useful conversation.

Thanks guys! (And gals…)

Honestly , i feel this about the asertions made from you/your camp too, but i don’t think you see this

i think where alot of confusion comes in, is that theists think that when a-theists talk about theology that they are talking theology and that discussion should stay within their, often personal, framework of theology.

I have some issues with these two statements. In my opinion every bit of knowledge, whatever it’s nature or context is stained and strained by interpretative judgements. This is a good place to start a discussion, because if empericists want to assume that we can know positivistically & purely, w have a problem which is going to haunt every single discussion behind the curtains.

Am I still uninformed to this dilemma?

hugo has tried to explain why this view is wrong

Right now, I’d say “this view is different“, rather than “wrong” or “right”.

I think we’re beginning to understand one another better now. (Or maybe that’s just me understanding better.)

Halleluja!

Methinks every human has a great need to be understood.

Now I’d like to put the past behind us, and move on. I’m hoping we can have fruitful discussions and can successfully try to keep the emotions in check. It won’t always be the case, but if someone flairs up emotionally, can we all work together to try and keep things kinda calm? Something like that?

Tricky. I bet things were probably calmer than I thought, because if you look at something from an emotional point of frustration, everything looks more emotional.

Thanks guys.

/me is a happy camper.

i’m actually glad you find this frustrating, not because i wish you ill, but because then you understand what i am feeling. What frustrates me most is the fact that you think we don’t understand the theistic point of view, we do , reallly, we understand where you are comming from. (replace we/i) this communication is just hard when talking about this topic because the angle you take is just so different… you sometimes see certain things as ‘bad’ comments because of their nature … they are contradictory to the way you see it..
(goes both ways btw).

sad ben, i don’t mind that you think i’m arrogant, i can see /understand why you say.. Honestly , i feel this about the asertions made from you/your camp too, but i don’t think you see this (i just don’t feel there is a need to censor it/myself, you need to hear the “truth”… not some meaningless P.C. that will make you feel good, see my comment about the value of calling people ‘assholes’)

i think where alot of confusion comes in, is that theists think that when a-theists talk about theology that they are talking theology and that discussion should stay within their, often personal, framework of theology.

This makes discussion difficult, because we aren’t talking about theology in theological terms.

When I see something like shofar or islam or scientolgy or liberal theology i don’t differenciate between them. I see them as _exactly_ the same thing , just to a different degree.. I don’t dismis the ‘good’ that theology can provide in theory.. (this keeps comming up) please accept this .. I honestly dont think its _all_ bad, but i think its mostly bad.(maybe it sounds better if i say , the good is given too much credit).

look , this all has been discussed before. hugo has tried to explain why this view is wrong, but i dont accept it. that is my opinion and so far noone have sufficiantly shown to me otherwise..
(no matter how much i try)

i’m not here because of a atheism vs. theism but i do feel i need to hold things i disagree with accountable or at the very least question them. (jst like you are doing ie. to discuss things.. discussion is good, and one of the main reasons i like this blog.

re: hugo’s fanboy comment (#59)
fanboys has an association with unreasonable fanatisism. if its meant like that then i disagree, but if its meant as ‘fans of this’ then i like the label.

Ek is bietjie te verbose, dalk. Moet dit dalk minder maak. Ek het amper visitors stats gepubliseer hier, maar dag toe dis dalk té off topic.

Dankie.

With regards to labelling people “Dawkins fanboys”, I realise that “fanboy” is probably a rather loaded word. I will try to think of an alternative some time. Furthermore, I will quite easily label someone a Dawkins fanboy even if he (or she) has not read any Dawkins. I’m referring mostly to a particular sentiment, a particular kind of fundamentalism (oops, another loaded word). This is very much similar to the way I’d consider some people as “following Jesus” even if they’ve never heard of him before.

So, that’s me. I’m a geek, an Open Source fanboy, a Borg fanboy, a Jesus fanboy, and… um… I’m fundamentalistic about compassion and placing myself in other people’s shoes and contexts. I’m apparently incurably optimistic about human potential. Etc.

Respect. Jou comments is van die beteres.

Shit, mag ‘n Shofarian vloek in die blogosphere?

Rudolph!

Ek het niks gesê oor die veranderde posisie teenoor Teisme nie! ek het gecomment dat soos Johan gesê het oor die Blue flamingos ding (btw. nie so ‘n snaakse beeld as dit teen jou neerhalend gebruik word nie. Ek het opgemerk dat jou oorspronklike comment nie so onskuldig was soos wat jy dit wil uitmaak om te wees nie. Fair enough Johan se blog was nie so onskuldig as wat hy dit uitgemaak het om te wees nie. Maar dit was vir my weer nogals snaaks (die faith like potatoes ding vir ateiste – classic!)

Konteks Konteks Konteks!!!

Bad Ben, Ek wil nie ‘n ander prentjie skets as in my oorspronklike post nie. Ek dink nogsteeds Teisme Is sonder meriete. Ek wil net hê dat mense wat nie met my saamstem nie ordentlik en puntsgewys teen my argumenteer, en ek sal dieselfde doen. In verband hiermee:

Johan , hê ‘n bietjie van ‘n humorsin. Ek dink die “blue flamingos” ding was nogals ‘n snaakse image. Sien dit gou in jou geestesoog. komaan. Dit is funny. Om ‘n idee irreverently te bespreek is nielkgeval nie dieselfde as character assassination nie.

Laaste punt voor ek gaan:
Voorts, waar kry jy die idee dat ek en Hugo “assailants” van Freethinking Maties is? Kritiek is net ‘n aanval as die gekritiseerde voel die wêreld draai om hom. Ons kritiseer. ‘n Ware vrydenker sal tog kritiek willekeurig oorweeg, in plaas daarvan om kritici se strotte uit te sny met indrukwekkende analogieë?

Jou bekotsingswaardige artikeltjie oor die Darwin Day ding, die manier waarop julle “Freethought” gemisinterpreteer het sonder om die geskiedenis van die term te ondersoek toon op ‘n houding van agressie eerder as oop diskussie. Dus die “assailants” ding. Inelkgeval, soos reeds bevestig, ek het gesê wat ek wou oor ons beweerde skynheiligheid. Dankie aan alle deelnemers, ek het defnitief ‘n paar dinge geleer.

Over and out.

Let there be dialogue.

/me is optimistic that the discussion is turning less sour.

I’d like it if we don’t have to shy away from any topic. We will just have to figure out how to keep the tempers down. (Um, that goes largely for me as well, who went a little bit crazy with frustration today. I’ve just had some victories over some of the gadgets that have been torturing me today, so I’m in a much better mood already.)

I like this society… big time

I personally believe that we came here through an incredibly old and immeasurably complex macro and micro form of creation for want of a better word, an event with its true genesis in what scientists call the Big Bang.

I also believe that we are not alone and that billions of planets in billions of galactic systems resemble our world, maybe even very closely in terms of species and biomass and furthermore as one travels inward towards the more gaseous heart of our galactic spiral, we would find younger, much hotter worlds, recently born and yet still only nascent biospheres capable of sustaining simple organisms – and alternately, as one travels outward toward the outer part of the spiral – you would find far older planets further up the evolutionary ladder and much closer to needing to be permanently evacuated by their sapient inhabitants because of the ageing star systems becoming supernovas.

True spirituality should be thinking hundreds even thousands or possibly millions of years ahead, gleaning all the knowledge we can possibly pool. If I could imagine our purpose as humans, it would be that we overcome our current and very dangerous post-pubescent behaviour and realise that our future both substantial and spiritual – lies with our children and only with our children. And their purpose is to go out one day and explore this entire Universe – with all its other inhabitants…

(Maybe I should save the rush and just shoot myself down in flames…Hugo are you done with your foot…, ankle…, knee…?)