huxley:

All I can say is that if a faith-head like Barker can make the transition to reason, so can anyone amenable to reason.

pilgrim.1:

@huxley,

Lol, I've heard so many people make such statement on the assumption that "faith-heads" are not reasonable people or do not reason at all. Please check again: the real issues when it comes to "reason" might surprise you, though. I haven't read Dan Barker that much; but those who assume that having faith is controverted to reason are living in illusion.

Dan Barker may argue long and hard - reasons best known to him, certainly; especially after 20 years walking as a faith-head himself. But hang on: there is another philosopher who walked for many years as an atheist, but recently came to the conclusion that there must be a God. Who's this? Anthony Flew. No, I have not said he's a theist or Christian. But one just wonders why this 'statistics' seem so exhilarating to many of us without asking the real questions of the day! I think it's just about time for people to get serious and stop ducking behind the palm shades of such stale news. Dan Barker hasn't proven that the supernatural does not exist - he may argue against it; but an argument in itslef is not "proof" against the object of his argument.

huxley:

Have you got any more information about his position? I know there was a books ghost-published by some Christian writers detailing his conversion. Have you read it?

Emma4u2c:

Just in case you don't know this going to a place of worship all the days of your life from birth does not make anyone a christian. So there is really no point jioning issues with whoever the author is

pilgrim.1:

Speaking for myself, my concerns are rather that such statistics seem to always exhilarate us on either side while we make a seriously weak case for the issues we celebrate. [b]Whether it was a theist becoming an atheist or an atheist becoming a theist or deist, I often find that these events occupy us much more than the real questions of life connected with issues of this kind. [/b]One such real issue is to understand that we are all reasoning people, and "reason" is not the prerogative of those who argue on atheistic platforms. To pit "reason" against "faith" is to muddle issues up - and that is why so many people walk away feeling none the wiser. There is no transition from faith to reason; for reason is involved in a life of faith.

Emma4u2c:

Just in case you don't know this going to a place of worship all the days of your life from birth does not make anyone a christian. So there is really no point jioning issues with whoever the author is

Chrisbenogor:

How body, hmmm I notice a serious activity drop from you is there something going on?

Wordsmith:

@ topic,

i had decided a while to stay away from debates and all, but i couldn't help but express my disgust at the term "faith-heads". I find it offensive, derogatory and insultive. Like believers don't reason simply because of their faith. The problem with atheists and their ilk is the fact that they practice exactly what they accuse theists especially Christians of - hypocrisy, insult hurling, disrepect, and the most important of all - bigotry.


Perhaps, if i referred to an atheist as a morally bankrupt slowpoke or a fool as the Bible aptly put it, you would see the same goons climaxing with insults. . . arrant nonsense.



. . . And yes, i'm annoyed

The problem with atheists and their ilk is the fact that they practice exactly what they accuse theists especially Christians of - hypocrisy, insult hurling, disrepect, and the most important of all - bigotry.

lelele:

@pilgim1
hello bin wantin 2 chat with u. yr numba isnt goin 2ru. buzz me when u ar less busy.

Ahhhhh!! I am so sorry! Look at me playing here when I have very important issues to attend to! Don't mind me - I just iggy-ed those gentlemen filling my screen with insults on YIM and decided to come here. Hmm, I'll go back on just now. Sorry I kept you waiting! Awww. , here's a warm hug for all that wait!!

Wordsmith:

@ topic,

i had decided a while to stay away from debates and all, but i couldn't help but express my disgust at the term "faith-heads". I find it offensive, derogatory and insultive. Like believers don't reason simply because of their faith. The problem with atheists and their ilk is the fact that they practice exactly what they accuse theists especially Christians of - hypocrisy, insult hurling, disrepect, and the most important of all - bigotry.


Perhaps, if i referred to an atheist as a morally bankrupt slowpoke or a fool as the Bible aptly put it, you would see the same goons climaxing with insults. . . arrant nonsense.



. . . And yes, i'm annoyed

huxley:

One of the countries with the lower criminality in the world Japan.  What is their proportion of atheist compared to Nigeria?   C'mon, give us some evidence, if you know what that word means.

pilgrim.1:

Please let me borrow the above line from you, erudite poet, just to illustrate a point about some (please, I said "some" of the most vocal atheists in our backyard. Often it is said that these people are passionate about truth and make a lot of noise about integrity. Uhm. . . I'm not quite sure that these are the finest points about this don of Oxford. So here:

Curled from the Telegraph.co.uk  ~~


             ________________________________________________________________

                                           [size=14pt]Dawkins does it again[/size]

             Here is a really ugly spat between Professor Richard Dawkins and my old friend
             the science writer Andrew Brown. In an article for the online Guardian*, Brown has
             accused Dawkins of circulating a "rather unpleasant little lie" about the philosopher
             Mary Midgley to whit, that years ago she gave a damning review to The Selfish Gene
             without having bothered to read the book.

             The allegation boils down to this: back in 1995, Dawkins told Brown that Midgley
             had confessed to reviewing his book without reading it. Brown thought this was
             utter nonsense: Midgley's damning review was very detailed and obviously based
             on the text.

             Later, Dawkins told Brown in an email that it was all an unfortunate confusion.
             Matter settled. But now, to Brown's amazement, Dawkins writing on his own website
             has again accused Mary Midgley of confessing to reviewing the book without reading it.
             Brown can hardly believe it:

                         What makes it almost literally incredible that he should write
                         this is that he links in that post to her original review, so that
                         anyone who bothers to click through can check the evidence for
                         his claim. It is true that some of the quote marks have fallen off
                         her quotes from his book, but I am sure that he recognises
                         his own words even if not everyone else does.

                         Mary Midgley wrote to him some weeks ago asking him to withdraw
                         the allegation. No reply. Well, he's a world-famous millionaire and
                         she's an elderly widow not nearly rich enough to wave lawyers at
                         anyone. But it is all rather sad for anyone who believes in the power
                         of reason.

            Some people posting under the article have suggested that it's a storm in a teacup.
            I don't think it is. Dawkins needs to clarify his position if he can.

             ________________________________________________________________


* the online Guardian*, article says:

     "Physician, heal thyself
      Richard Dawkins demands evidence for every factual claim
      and yet he cannot let go of an irrational belief about one of his critics"



I have often called for a a sensible handling of issues where the real questions of the day could formulate the issues we need to discuss. Okay, my apologies to those who may feel a bit distraught at my referencing Dawkins as if he alone is the highpriest of atheism. No, I don't think so - and there are quite a number of other folks who are as vociferous as the don of Oxford. Problem is that these folks will spend all their lives harping at theists (aye, Christians) as the most dishonest people on earth. We don't need to travel far to examine where these men stand on the scale of integrity. Imagine a man of his standing playing the hypocrisy of a school rascal. Baa!

huxley:

Dawkins does not constitue atheism or make any claim to a moral high ground, as far as I know. Unlike the faith-head who are in the habit of claiming moral superiority. This is a very bad way to argue or debate. I and many atheist have been asking the Christians to define what Christianity is. But there fail to do so.

I could mention all the frauds amongst the Christian leaders from the Ted Haggard, Jim Swaggart, Oral Robertson, Popov, Bakers, etc, etc. Does that speak for Christianity?

plus_Queen:

And your Dan Barker does?
shifting standards eh?

huxley:

Where did I say Barker constitute atheism? Did I even imply this? Show me please?

Get it now, NOBODY BUT NOBODY constitute atheism.

And try and answer my question about what xianity is.

plus_Queen:

Is it by force?
must I answer any and every question posed by any and every one on nairaland.
abeg gerraway jo

Wordsmith:

@ huxley,

LOL, look here little man, you can ignore the latter part of my post and go on and on foaming at the mouth about reason this. . . escatholoshadadajangbalajugbu. . . long tin on a kentro level, man . . . it still doesn't take away the fact that you are as much a bigot and hypocrite, same goes for your goon squad.

LOL, funny enough, you forgot the slowpoke part when quoting the morally bankrupt statement i made . . .

huxley:

Why am I not surprised? Why arguments fail you, you resort to condescension and insults.

huxley:

Dawkins does not constitue atheism or make any claim to a moral high ground, as far as I know. Unlike the faith-head who are in the habit of claiming moral superiority.

huxley:

This is a very bad way to argue or debate. I and many atheist have been asking the Christians to define what Christianity is. But there fail to do so

huxley:

I could mention all the frauds amongst the Christian leaders from the Ted Haggard, Jim Swaggart, Oral Robertson, Popov, Bakers, etc, etc. Does that speak for Christianity?

Very very true, you can imagine how many people would be drawn if someone like david* turns into an atheist in 2010 the effect would be felt seriously by all Christians on this forum. But like I always say when faith ventures into the den of reason then its up for a duel!
Cheers

All I can say is that if a faith-head like Barker can make the transition to reason, so can anyone amenable to reason

~Lady~:

Hmmm I gotta disagree, I don't think David is a good example. He doesn't know that there are 10 commandments, he thinks there are only 9. And he doesn't know what Christian virtues are.

So I don't know about that. I actually wouldn't be shocked, I would say "aha the truth has come out, he was never Christian after all"

~Lady~:

Hmmm I gotta disagree, I don't think David is a good example. He doesn't know that there are 10 commandments, he thinks there are only 9. And he doesn't know what Christian virtues are.

So I don't know about that. I actually wouldn't be shocked, I would say "aha the truth has come out, he was never Christian after all"