quisquose Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Right i will tell you. A reference to Lourdes,which i found offensive,and I expect there are other Christians that would feel the same. I'm sorry, but if you found Suffragette1's and redwhine's comments about Lourdes "offensive" then I'm flabbergasted, I really am. In fact, I almost feel offended by your offence, if you get my drift, because you are hinting at censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I'm sorry, but if you found Suffragette1's and redwhine's comments about Lourdes "offensive" then I'm flabbergasted, I really am. In fact, I almost feel offended by your offence, if you get my drift, because you are hinting at censorship. I have to agree wih quisquose and Ryedo, Janie, what possible offence could the Lourdes comment cause? I'm sorry about your friend, but the Lourde's post is not targeted at her or anything/anyone in general. It isn't even an attack, it's merely an observation. I'd like to understand your offence if you can explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Right i will tell you. A reference to Lourdes,which i found offensive,and I expect there are other Christians that would feel the same. I had a close relative who visited Lourdes,she has passed on now. She knew she was ill and unlikely to recover,she had resigned herself to that and did not go to there hoping for a cure.She just felt a need to go thats all,and gained much benifit from doing so. It isn't that i object to the faults of religion being pointed out,i am not totally blind to those faults myself! In reply to your other post,yes there are theists that seek to impose their beliefs on others,but i havn't seen any on here lately,i can only recall seeing one and that was ages ago. If you mean my post, what do you find offensive about this?... 'Cos they float around in the water where people with all kinds of diseases have gone before. They go in sick an come out terminal. (Like people going into hospital with a sprained ankle and catching MRSA.) ...from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lourdes 68 healings out of 200,000,000 patients? If that were a hospital, it'd be shut down. Do they all go in the same water or have separate 'baths'? Cross contamination seems like a reasonable expectation to me. Do you really believe that 68 successes out of 200 million attempts supports the 'amazing power of gawd' theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 In fact, I almost feel offended by your offence, if you get my drift, because you are hinting at censorship. Is that how you see it,well thats a shame.Feel free to express yourself however you like.This is your platform,take advantage of it.Go a little further each time if it makes you feel better. There may not be many theists to debate with,they seem to be the minority on here,or if they do come on they don't seem to stick around long.Not very good communication methods are imparted it seems. Consider it a victory if you wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 It's a shame you couldn't have quoted those posts. I've skimmed through and only found three. One where someone asked why people don't get better who visit Lourdes and two answering the question. I couldn't really see anything offensive about those answers. I didn't want to quote posters and names from a different thread.It seems to me now i over-reacted (see my post 783) Can't really explain, all i can say is that i had a quick look at the thread,saw those posts and at first glance thought they were being derogatory.I didn't even look at the link in the post at first which was unwise.It was as if i was expecting it to be critical. I explained to you about my cousin,something must have hit a nerve.I wish i had not mentioned all that but now the deed is done. I can't reply to all the post comments that came my way. Anyway i think i have reached stalemate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redwhine Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I can't reply to all the post comments that came my way. Why can't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Why can't you? What! I flipped once...I'm not going to risk it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quisquose Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Good to see that there is some reporting that the "most famous atheist in the world" has stated that he is an agnostic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html This will come as no surprise to a self identified agnostic-atheist, such as myself, who has actually taken notice of the fact that Dawkins has always self identified himself that way. It will come as no surprise to the many atheists that have self identified themselves as such on this thread, or even nearly every atheist I know that does for that matter. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that danot failed to grasp it for so long, if he has even managed to now, and that the philosopher chairing the discussion failed to, as did the religious correspondent for the Telegraph for that matter. It has been obvious for so long that faithiests have defined atheism as an extreme definite position, in such a limited way, that they have chosen to ignore what that actual definition is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janie48 Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Good to see that there is some reporting that the "most famous atheist in the world" has stated that he is an agnostic: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html This will come as no surprise to a self identified agnostic-atheist, such as myself, who has actually taken notice of the fact that Dawkins has always self identified himself that way. It will come as no surprise to the many atheists that have self identified themselves as such on this thread, or even nearly every atheist I know that does for that matter. Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised that danot failed to grasp it for so long, if he has even managed to now, and that the philosopher chairing the discussion failed to, as did the religious correspondent for the Telegraph for that matter. It has been obvious for so long that faithiests have defined atheism as an extreme definite position, in such a limited way, that they have chosen to ignore what that actual definition is. Mr Dawkins has surprised me. I thought..he thought..he himself was God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Wasn't it already common knowledge that Dawkins is an agnostic atheist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.