Humanist Fellowship of San Diego Message Board › How Not to Talk About the Beliefs of Others

How Not to Talk About the Beliefs of Others

A former member
Post #: 37
"President Obama is a highly educated person who was raised mainly by atheists. He only joined a church when he entered politics and immediately stopped once he was elected President (I don't believe his family goes anymore either). The possibility of President Obama actually being a Christian and not just saying so for his political career, is both statistically and factually ignorant. "

Sean, this is the Equivalency of the Oprah view. You have no evidence that Obama is an Atheist other than intuition. Would you please explain why Obama saying himself that he is a Christian, we should ignore that, and go with your opinion that he is lying and that "statistically and factually" we are ignorant if we believe him? Why is this not the same as Oprah? She did the same thing as you are doing and was the point of the article.
Shawn
Mandibles
San Diego, CA
Post #: 64
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on this forum... (Jaws music).
Taylor
SDTaylor
Oceanside, CA
Post #: 156
Sean, this is the Equivalency of the Oprah view. You have no evidence that Obama is an Atheist other than intuition. Would you please explain why Obama saying himself that he is a Christian, we should ignore that, and go with your opinion that he is lying and that "statistically and factually" we are ignorant if we believe him? Why is this not the same as Oprah? She did the same thing as you are doing and was the point of the article.
At the risk of providing too much time on a lame little article, I kindly request Chris, that you please re-read my initial post and then try again. When you do, be sure to tell me how the reasons/evidence Oprah used in asserting that a certain athlete was lying about not believing in any god(s), was equivalent to the reasons/evidence that Dawkins used (which I repeated in agreement) in assuming that a politician may have done the unthinkable (lied about something in their personal life in order to get elected). Seriously, please explain how redefining a belief in god, as being able to feel awe and/or wonder; is analogous to the book of evidence that might very strongly imply that someone just might be pretending to be a Christian for very obvious and necessary political reasons. I beg that you also re-read the article to find out what "the point" was that it actually made. The central point expressed in the article, was that Oprah and Dawkins both just saw someone that they respected intellectually and therefore claimed them to be one of their own (for their worldview). Now, please also tell me how the assumption that I or Dawkins have made regarding Obama's theism (based on the evidence that both of us have provided); is in any way reasonable to assume that it had nothing to do with the evidence, but only because we think he's smart and therefore want him to be on our "team." Please Chris, I beg that you very clearly and directly respond to these questions and requests if you post to me again on this subject.
Taylor
SDTaylor
Oceanside, CA
Post #: 157
Just when you thought it was safe to go back on this forum... (Jaws music).
HA-HA!
A former member
Post #: 38
Wow, really, Sean? Well, all your begging is for naught, I'm ignoring your silly demands. Instead, I'll answer the way I want to answer, succinctly.

From the first post of this thread, re-posting from Huffington Post: "What we can learn from these two vivid examples is that we all have the right to decide how to identify ourselves in terms of religion or lack thereof. It is not for others to affix their identity upon us, or strip ours from us."
A former member
Post #: 47
Well said, Chris. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
Taylor
SDTaylor
Oceanside, CA
Post #: 159
Wow, really, Sean? Well, all your begging is for naught, I'm ignoring your silly demands.
Chris, I admit that I begged, because I said things like, "I beg...." However, I can't see that I made demands, because I didn't say, "I demand..." As far as my response to yours being silly, I can acknowledge an argument could probably be made there; but I don't see you made one. Further, I could quite easily think of a few names to call your posts, but I think it has been accurately pointed out to me already on this thread that those types of words will not likely be helpful.

Look, you made an accusation towards me. I responded to it and pointed out a number of ways in which that accusation was inaccurate (mainly reading comprehension issues). Anticipating further argument, I very politely pleaded that any further argument contained answers to how the initial accusation could possibly be accurate in light of everything somehow missed before, but all of which was generously repeated. Instead, you refer to my begging for honest discourse as "silly demands" and answer not a single issue taken with your accusation.

Now, as to your new accusation against me - can you please inform me as to where I have forced my identity onto anyone else (because I just want them on my "team"); or implied that others should do the same? I don't agree that anyone should practice this sort of behavior and don't think I have said anyone should. However, to repeat myself yet again, despite the accusations of the article, that's not what Dawkins did; and nor did I.
Shawn
Mandibles
San Diego, CA
Post #: 65
You WILL understand or else I'm going to have to... explain further.

(Fatality)
Powered by mvnForum

Our Sponsors

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy