|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
 Posted - 01/14/2007 : 00:07:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
I don't think I or anyone else here is suggesting that skeptics “smile and nod” when such issues come up in common conversation. I merely tried to say that there is a difference between ridicule and polite expression of skepticism. I had an experience a while ago where I was at a dinner party and people started talking about ghosts. I did not keep my skepticism a secret at all. But I expressed it in a way that didn't insult those who believed in ghosts. They felt free to say their reasons for believing, and I felt free to explain why their reasons weren't enough evidence for myself. But if I had said that believing in ghosts was “stupid” or “nonsense”, unless we were very close friends and they could take it as tongue and cheek, they would have felt hurt. It wouldn't have increased the cause of critical thinking. It would have only served to hurt feelings, and probably would have shut down the conversation entirely. In fact, by voicing my opinions politely, it is more likely that I promoted skepticism.
You are projecting onto me a cynical namecaller. I never said anything about calling people stupid. I also did not saying anything about being rude. I was criticizing passiveness and was in no way directly addressing you, Marf, and calling you a passive accepter of irrational beliefs. This is why I did not have a reply at the top. I was merely expressing my feelings about 'smiling and nodding' toward faith statements. I am talking about not stating objection for fear of offending others when someone claims ghosts are in their house or the like. By no means did I say "Call the lying buggers out and punch them right in the face for being stupid!" I simply said that it should not go unchallenged.
quote:
Why do you have a problem with it? Some people are secure in what they believe and do not desire to debate it. Why should they be required to get involved in an intellectual debate over theology every time beliefs are brought up. We can politely agree to disagree on things, and that way we skeptics do not deny our skepticism, but we also don't needlessly insult peoples' most dearly-held worldviews. I also don't think “we” are so different from “them”. I have way more in common with a progressive Christian than they do with a fundamentalist Christian. And my atheist-Humanist worldview is very important to me, and I do feel hurt when intolerant religious people casually insult or belittle it.
First, I never said that we should (and specifically said that I avoided) seeking out the unskeptical and berating them. I simply said that if someone wants to have a conversation with me then they should expect that I will not simply allow any statement to be made unchallenged. When people are happy going along in their lives and not crossing my path, I may very well nod their way (or not as I am often absorbed in thought and unaware of my surroundings, which is admittedly sad in terms of 'smelling the roses' and wotknot) and certainly will not dive across to their side of the street and scream bloody skepticism. Only when such time as they are in a conversation with me or their decisions impact me will I even address them much less debate them on any subject.
Second, whether or not people function well on their irrational beliefs is not my concern. It is only my concern whether or not their decisions effect me and whether they are positive or negative. Some people believe in racial superiority and are quite fine with that. Should they be immune to debating their position as well? The answer is |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
 |
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 09:43:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
I don't know that H was talking about being mean. I think he was expressing a bit of frustration at how he is required to address the sillyness of some peoples beliefs. Such as entertaining the question of how many angels can dance on a pin head just because people around the discussion may believe in angels.
And when was the last time that this question was seriously "entertained" by theists? I suspect that you'll find that this particular question serves primarily as an exemplar of a challenge/bait issued mockingly by a few nontheists, i.e., it was and is the theist who should be "expressing a bit of frustration at how he is required to address the sillyness" of such disingenuous questions. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 09:45:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by HalfMooner
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Half wrote: quote:
Atheists are continually condemned as immoral, soulless individuals by many religious people, not just by fundamentalists. Why should secular people be forced to defend themselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind their backs,
Ah, the equivalent to "But Johnny hit me first!" So we must become what we hate to fight what we hate. How cliche.
To answer your question, we should defend ourselves with one rhetorical hand tied behind our backs because we are better than them. "Should" being the key word there.
Now, that was very unsubtle of you, Marf. And a misrepresentation of what I'd written. I never said anything about getting revenge, only about being able to argue on equal footing.
..., i.e., but Johnny hit me first. |
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 11:51:10 [Permalink]
|
Neurosis wrote: quote:
You are projecting onto me a cynical namecaller.
I did not mean to give that impression and if I did, I regret it. I think right now both of us are guilty of some misunderstanding and talking at each other, and I apologize, especially since I started it. The words "stupid" and "nonsense" were in quotes because Half and Humbert used them, and I didn't mean to imply they were attributed to you.
I do find your hatred of PC a bit over-the-top. PC has gotten a bad reputation because it has been taken to extremes where it becomes overly self-conscious, absurd, and meaningless. However, the complete absence of a sense of political correctness is just as bad as the extreme of its presence because of how it perpetuates ignorance and lack of empathy. A moderate and sensible amount of PC is useful for having awareness and mutual understanding in our diverse society.
Edited to add: Ideally, concepts of political correctness spark constructive dialog, not static terms and rules. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 01/14/2007 11:55:05 |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 11:54:41 [Permalink]
|
Obviously, us skeptics are of more than one mind on the subject of religion. To be sure, I wouldn't be an agnostic/atheist if I thought there was really anything to the claims of a supernatural power directing traffic. Or even just being there, with not much to say about how things are going on our little planet.
Having said that, I prefer taking a pragmatic approach to those people of faith who are not a threat to the advancement of knowledge of our natural world. And that happens to be most Christians and Jews and certainly the Deists as well. As I see it, religion is not going to go away. And we have bigger fish to fry.
On the religion front, fundamentalism is the enemy. Those who would try to impose a theocracy and dictate what our children should be taught in science classrooms are the enemy. Those who would strap bombs on to themselves to blow up people who don't accept their particular God given Truth are the enemy.
But they are not the average God believer. Why on earth should I care about those who go to church on Sunday, have bake sales and belong to a community that does not pose a threat to the pursuit of knowledge my enemy? While I may not agree with what they believe, as long as they aren't in the way of some more important goals we may have as critical thinkers, why should I care?
And sure, if someone of faith wants to know why I reject their basic premise I will tell them why I do. That is not the same as attacking all of those who count themselves among the faithful.
I find the angry atheist thing disturbing. It may be our job as critical thinkers to bring as much reason as we can to the table, but jumping down the throat of everyone who does not share our way of evaluating evidence can be counter productive. I think a person would be hard pressed to listen to anything we have to say while we are busy attacking their entire worldview. It might be helpful to remember that we are not talking about liars and charlatans simply because they are people of faith. And while we may not agree with them on the God question, it makes no sense to alienate them and give them reason to believe that what they are being told about atheists by the more fundamentalist members of their faith is true.
Religion is not going to go away. Our job is to learn how to best to deal with it. And again, as a skeptic, I am not suggesting that we give any claim to the supernatural a pass. But if we start acting as though we are the ones who have cornered the Truth, we become no better then the fundamentalist versions of what we are skeptical of…
Let me ask a question. Does being right carry more weight than being practical?
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 23:32:14 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Neurosis wrote: quote:
You are projecting onto me a cynical namecaller.
I did not mean to give that impression and if I did, I regret it. I think right now both of us are guilty of some misunderstanding and talking at each other, and I apologize, especially since I started it. The words "stupid" and "nonsense" were in quotes because Half and Humbert used them, and I didn't mean to imply they were attributed to you.
Yes, I agree there were some misreading. I am not offended by it on your part and hope you are not on my part. I am more than willing to clarify where I am misunderstood.
quote:
I do find your hatred of PC a bit over-the-top. PC has gotten a bad reputation because it has been taken to extremes where it becomes overly self-conscious, absurd, and meaningless. However, the complete absence of a sense of political correctness is just as bad as the extreme of its presence because of how it perpetuates ignorance and lack of empathy. A moderate and sensible amount of PC is useful for having awareness and mutual understanding in our diverse society.
Edited to add: Ideally, concepts of political correctness spark constructive dialog, not static terms and rules.
I understand you to use PC interchangably with having good taste or being conscious of peoples uniqueness or something similar. I am not advocating 'talking out of one's ass' or anything. Poor taste in off-color jokes and etc. is a sign of ignorance. When I say I hate PC I mean I hate having to censor my statements around what people may take offense to, or more clearly, trying to ensure peoples feelings first. I think that what someone finds offensive is personal and a personal problem. I would never say "I am offended by that, thus you should not have said it." There are things that should not be said because they are inaccurate or, maybe, even inappropriate, but even then a person who thinks them or believes them should not be censored because they are mean. Is it less mean to think something than say it? Or are both a reflection of that person more than of the offended.
I am not intentionally mean, and I think being so is a sign of social ignorance, like talking with you mouth full or worse yet showing the chewed food as a joke (and etc.). I have met and know a few people like this even though they are old enough to know better. However, that does not change the fact that I will say things as I believe them to be when I want to share that thought regardless of who is present.
Edited for Dave |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/15/2007 00:15:18 |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 23:51:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kil
Obviously, us skeptics are of more than one mind on the subject of religion. To be sure, I wouldn't be an agnostic/atheist if I thought there was really anything to the claims of a supernatural power directing traffic. Or even just being there, with not much to say about how things are going on our little planet.
Having said that, I prefer taking a pragmatic approach to those people of faith that who are not a threat to the advancement of knowledge of our natural world. And that happens to be most Christians and Jews and certainly the Deists as well. As I see it, religion is not going to go away. And we have bigger fish to fry.
On the religion front, fundamentalism is the enemy. Those who would try to impose a theocracy and dictate what our children should be taught in science classrooms are the enemy. Those who would strap bombs on to themselves to blow up people who don't accept their particular God given Truth are the enemy.
But they are not the average God believer. Why on earth should I care about those who go to church on Sunday, have bake sales and belong to a community that does not pose a threat to the pursuit of knowledge my enemy? While I may not agree with what they believe, as long as they aren't in the way of some more important goals we may have as critical thinkers, why should I care? And sure, if someone of faith wants to know why I reject their basic premise I will tell them why I do. That is not the same as attacking all of those who count themselves among the faithful.
I find the angry atheist thing disturbing. It may be our job as critical thinkers to bring as much reason as we can to the table, but jumping down the throat of everyone who does not share our way of evaluating evidence can be counter productive. I think a person would be hard pressed to listen to anything we have to say while we are busy attacking their entire worldview. It might be helpful to remember that we are not talking about liars and charlatans simply because they are people of faith. And while we may not agree with them on the God question, it makes no sense to alienate them and give them reason to believe that what they are being told about atheists by the more fundamentalist members of their faith is true.
Religion is not going to go away. Our job is to learn how to best to deal with it. And again, as a skeptic, I am not suggesting that we give any claim to the supernatural a pass. But if we start acting as though we are the ones who have cornered the Truth, we become no better then the fundamentalist versions of what we are skeptical of…
Let me ask a question. Does being right carry more weight than being practical?
I agree with you, Kil. I never suggested jumping down anyone's throat and wouldn't. I simply suggest not giving pass to beliefs not based on evidence and intentionally trying to further critical thinking and evaluation.
As for right over practical. Hmm. I think that being right is always most practical. I do see your dilemma, however. If you must die over a belief, or reject it and live, how could anyone truthfully answer without the situation upon them. Or a less morbid one (prolly what you intended) civility with your fellow man or accuracy in the population for which advocating would produce anarchy.
Truthfully, all I want is for the decisions of my fellow man to benifit me and mine (or be neutral). The basis for these is not as relevant, but I would like it to be transmutable. As in, I would like to see decisions based on something disprovable, so that I can insure that if I need I can disuade them from actions that may be harmful, civilly. So in effect, I think that being critical and scientific (if you will) is the best way to furthe |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 23:54:15 [Permalink]
|
As an editor, I can't tell you how offensive I find it when people use "insure" when they mean "ensure," or use the redundant "and etc" (since the et part of et cetera means "and"). 
 |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 00:08:59 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by ConsequentAtheist
And when was the last time that this question was seriously "entertained" by theists? I suspect that you'll find that this particular question serves primarily as an exemplar of a challenge/bait issued mockingly by a few nontheists, i.e., it was and is the theist who should be "expressing a bit of frustration at how he is required to address the sillyness" of such disingenuous questions.
Go here.
First, many theist did and do discuss the nature of Angels. Something they can have no source of information for, excluding the Bible which is fairly silent on the matter and itself not proven as a credible source.
Second, the point was that one must first establish something's existence before discussing its nature.
Third, I did not (nor did H) say anything about disingenuous questions. |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
|
|
|
Neurosis
SFN Regular
USA
675 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 00:12:13 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As an editor, I can't tell you how offensive I find it when people use "insure" when they mean "ensure," or use the redundant "and etc" (since the et part of et cetera means "and").
Sorry. I am not anal retentive with grammer and only Entend to get my point accross, reggardless of how tortured my spelling or usage is.
Edited to add: Isn't your job as an editor based on such mistakes? |
Facts! Pssh, you can prove anything even remotely true with facts.
- Homer Simpson
[God] is an infinite nothing from nowhere with less power over our universe than the secretary of agriculture.
- Prof. Frink
Lisa: Yes, but wouldn't you rather know the truth than to delude yourself for happiness?
Marge: Well... um.... [goes outside to jump on tampoline with Homer.] |
| Edited by - Neurosis on 01/15/2007 00:16:27 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 00:13:58 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Sorry. I am not anal retentive with grammer and only Entend to get my point accross, reggardless of how tortured my spelling or usage is.
Argh!
[Brain explodes.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26021 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 00:19:05 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
Edited to add: Isn't your job as an editor based on such mistakes?
Urk!
[Nonexistent paycheck explodes.] |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 10:16:33 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W....
As an editor, I can't tell you how offensive I find it when people use "insure" when they mean "ensure," or use the redundant "and etc" (since the et part of et cetera means "and").
I'll have mine with au jus!
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 10:47:40 [Permalink]
|
I think the difference is between labeling theists stupid (often inaccurate), and labeling theistic beliefs and lines of reasoning stupid (entirely accurate).
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 13:00:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Neurosis
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
As an editor, I can't tell you how offensive I find it when people use "insure" when they mean "ensure," or use the redundant "and etc" (since the et part of et cetera means "and").
Sorry. I am not anal retentive with grammer and only Entend to get my point accross, reggardless of how tortured my spelling or usage is.
Edited to add: Isn't your job as an editor based on such mistakes?
That should have been, "irregardless."
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
