The Atheist Bible Study Forums

I agree with you in (a very small) part: we are off the original topic - the new topic seems to be
"Is Religion Evil?" or something like that - I like provocative topics by the way.
I believe I am / we are prerry much on (that new) topic (you had a ""omniscient god" post that had nothing to do with anything - I had my "three button room" in the wrong forum) other than that, we are on topic (the new topic that is) - so we are good.
You could rename the forum to "Is Religion Evil?" if that is possible, since that is pretty much all we talk about since post 2.
I think you will agree that we have reached a point were we have a fundamental disagreement about a core issue of what we belief. If two otherwise mostly rational people (I still give you the benefit of the doubt here ) get "emotional" and accuse each other of "being irrational", then my friend you have found something very precious - you have found a "core issue".
I suggest we try to define as clearly as possible what this core issue is - and what the main statements supporting our beliefs on this issue are. I also suggest that we try to state each other's point of view - that's a good exercise in understanding what the other side is reall saying ... have you ever had an argument where the other side is fighting you on a position you don't have ....
I'll do that in a separate post later to keep things uncluttered.

to be contiuned in new topic Is Religion Evil?

ramatheson - quoting Thomas Jefferson - wrote:Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them...

Thomas Jefferson also wrote:“Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us.”thinkexist.com

According to my humble observation you seem to have a tendency to use ridicule in the latter context.

More quotes on ridicule thinkexist.com

Oscar Wilde wrote:“Ridicule is the tribute paid to the genius by the mediocrities.” thinkexist.com

Frederick Douglass wrote:“I prefer to be true to myself, even at the hazard of incurring the ridicule of others, rather than to be false, and to incur my own abhorrence.” thinkexist.com

“Ridicule is like a wolf: it only destroys those who fear it”

Louisa May Alcott wrote:“Let my name stand among those who are willing to bear ridicule and reproach for the truth's sake, and so earn some right to rejoice when the victory is won.” thinkexist.com

Sir Walter Scott wrote:"Ridicule often checks what is absurd, and fully as often smothers that which is noble.”

Baruch Spinoza wrote:“I have made a ceaseless effort not to ridicule, not to bewail, not to scorn human actions, but to understand them”

Havelock Ellis wrote:“It is curious how there seems to be an instinctive disgust in Man for his nearest ancestors and relations. If only Darwin could conscientiously have traced man back to the Elephant or the Lion or the Antelope, how much ridicule and prejudice would have been spared to the doctrine of Evolution.”

Charles Simmons wrote:“Ridicule is the first and last argument of a fool”

Sheila Rowbotham wrote:“When a man curls his lip, when he uses ridicule, when he grows angry, you have touched a raw nerve in domination”

and, least but not least, a quote that's more down your alley

Thomas Aquinas wrote:“The truth of our faith becomes a matter of ridicule among the infidels if any Catholic, not gifted with the necessary scientific learning, presents as dogma what scientific scrutiny shows to be false.” thinkexist.com

This - I believe - is a principle we can both agree on.

I'll take one Thomas Jefferson quote over all those quotes you posted anyday. Interesting quotes, but I tend to disagree. Ridicule is one thing, but name-calling (which your quotes seem to mean by the word) is something different. There's a difference between "You are making a ridiculous comment. I don't even really think I will respond, stop being silly." (ridicule) and "You're an idiot and that idea is stupid." (ad hominem)

That is a good Aquinas quote.

In light of the Aquinas quote, would you agree that

Science makes some claims that it cannot support with data
(e.g. "life on earth - i.e. the first cell - originated by random processes and natural selection")

Religion makes some claims that contradict observable fact
(e.g. "the earth is 6000 years old")

Religion makes claims that contradict their own sacred scriptures
(e.g. "God hates homosexuals', "Good people go to heaven")

By "Science" and "Religion" I mean a significant number of people in each camp.

I believe that if you reduce "Science" and the "Bible" to what they are actually saying, there is not conflict at all, to the contrary, they supplement and support each other perfectly.