Religion-Bashing

[Elgarian]

Have you ever seen the reaction of a group of scientists to a paper they disagree with? Venomous covers it nicely, no quarter is asked or given. That's good, since ridicule is simply inseparable from a negative judgment about the merits of a position.

That's a breakdown of rationality, demonstrating only the unscientific and irrational attitudes of the scientists who indulge in it.

[71 dB]

I spit in my kitchen sink and not because I want to bash it. 

[david johnson]

    Not so, I'm afraid. Pay attention to the arguments. They're almost as much fun as the "insults".

of course i'm right.

[Catison]

The entire point of "faith" is believing something despite the fact that there is not evidence to support it.

Nope.  Please see here.

[Scarpia]

Nope.  Please see here.

Words do have meanings, outside of peoples meandering web postings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith  (2b)

[Catison]

Words do have meanings, outside of peoples meandering web postings.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith  (2b)

You seemed to have skipped over (2a), which is the meaning of faith in this context.

[DavidRoss]

As in having faith that your friend will pick you up from the airport on time, because she has a history of doing what she says, or faith that your wife loves you, because her behavior is characteristic of love, or faith in the veracity of the news article you just read, because...?

Some around here revel in their intellectual dishonesty.  Most of them probably don't mean to be so dishonest.  They're dishonest with themselves first, thus can hardly help but be dishonest with others.  In most cases it's probably remedial, the cause spiritual rather than organic: self-aggrandizement in its myriad manifestations; the contrary of Shakespeare's admonition, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou canst not then be false to any man."

If you're lying, and you don't know that you're lying because you're lying to yourself, and because of that essential dishonesty you cannot recognize your lies and self-deception even when others point them out to you, then you're screwed.  Once this pathology is established, it seems to take an act of God to get out of the rut.

[Dr. Dread]

Yes, Scarpia. Quit lying to yourself or DidacticDavid will put a hurtin' on ya.  0:)

[Joe_Campbell]

Yes, Scarpia. Quit lying to yourself or DidacticDavid will put a hurtin' on ya.  0:)

Does DR have a valid point, MN Dave? Or are you caught up in his delivery?

[Dr. Dread]

Does DR have a valid point, MN Dave? Or are you caught up in his delivery?

No and yes.

[Dr. Dread]

Watch me now as I attempt to keep out of these threads, just I as pass by churches and places where humanitarians congregate in the real world.

[Joe_Campbell]

No and yes.

You honestly think that scarpia was using the "correct" definition of the word, then, even when there was another completely appropriate definition lying right in front of him? I wouldn't go so far as to suggest a motive for his/her error, but it's quite obvious, as Catison pointed out, that just because someone can be made to sound foolish, it doesn't mean that they are.

[Joe_Campbell]

Watch me now as I attempt to keep out of these threads, just I as pass by churches and places where humanitarians congregate in the real world.

There's a place where everyone belongs:

0:)

[DavidRoss]

Gee, MN Dave, I'd really like to have your approval an' everything, but when folks go out of their way to trash other people, especially as dishonestly and persistently as some around here, I sometimes call them on it.  If they get offended when called to account for their nasty BS, there's a simple solution--stop treating others so shittily!  To make an extreme analogy, you seem perfectly content with rape going on all around, as long as no one tries to defend the victim and hold the rapist to account. 

Get real, Dave.  Those guys are persistent assholes toward anyone who doesn't share their pathetically narrow-minded view of the world, and in their bigoted assaults on others and their beliefs, they are every bit as nasty as their bigoted stereotypes of intolerant, bible-thumping fundamentalists.  Hypocrites!

[drogulus]

That's a breakdown of rationality, demonstrating only the unscientific and irrational attitudes of the scientists who indulge in it.

    I don't think so. Anyway the context is what matters. Ideas are treated harshly as part of the process of challenging them. I call it a stress test. What would you call the kind of coddling recommended here? What does it say about the quality of ideas that need its protection? Never mind, the question answers itself. You protect the weak, and the strong can protect themselves.

    So the believer say my ideas are absolutely true, the gods existence is beyond reason and certain, too! Furthermore, my ideas must be respected or I will go running to a moderator:

    Mom!! He's hitting me! Make him stop!

    Yup....just brimming with confidence!  

     

[knight66]

   
    So the believer say my ideas are absolutely true, the gods existence is beyond reason and certain, too! Furthermore, my ideas must be respected or I will go running to a moderator:
    Mom!! He's hitting me! Make him stop!

    Yup....just brimming with confidence!  

     

Where is your evidence for this? The problem is where people are denigrated, not ideas. There is no rule here about respecting ideas, there are rules about not insulting people.
Stay clear of the latter and you will be within the rules and incur no contact with the moderators.

Knight

[Elgarian]

    I don't think so. Anyway the context is what matters.

This is a sticking point for me. I too have seen academics of a wide variety (including scientists) behave in the way you recommend. When it happens, what they say is driven by the wrong motives (taking them far from the rationality they may claim to be defending), and the manner in which they say it is unacceptable. It isn't rational discourse. It's bad-tempered bedlam. In science, testing and accepting the failure of tests is part of the process. Ridicule has no place in it.

In such a barbaric arena, who would be so foolish as not to realise that their turn for ridicule might be next? Who is so certain of their ground as to adopt that attitude of superior wisdom, knowing how stupid they may look next week when the ground shifts? If to be wrong is to be ridiculous, where would that leave you, if you were wrong (as I believe you to be in numerous instances, for reasons which I've given)? Come on - this isn't a defensible position you're adopting. Let's talk about real stuff, not this nonsense.

[drogulus]

Where is your evidence for this? The problem is where people are denigrated, not ideas. There is no rule here about respecting ideas, there are rules about not insulting people.
Stay clear of the latter and you will be within the rules and incur no contact with the moderators.

Knight

    I'm aware of that and furthermore I'm the chief advocate for it, and have been for years. But you can state the obvious if you like. I'll continue as always. Maybe you can get some of my opponents to see the wisdom of this approach. Good luck, I'm pulling for you.

   

This is a sticking point for me. I too have seen academics of a wide variety (including scientists) behave in the way you recommend. When it happens, what they say is driven by the wrong motives (taking them far from the rationality they may claim to be defending), and the manner in which they say it is unacceptable. It isn't rational discourse. It's bad-tempered bedlam. In science, testing and accepting the failure of tests is part of the process. Ridicule has no place in it.

In such a barbaric arena, who would be so foolish as not to realise that their turn for ridicule might be next? Who is so certain of their ground as to adopt that attitude of superior wisdom, knowing how stupid they may look next week when the ground shifts? If to be wrong is to be ridiculous, where would that leave you, if you were wrong (as I believe you to be in numerous instances, for reasons which I've given)? Come on - this isn't a defensible position you're adopting. Let's talk about real stuff, not this nonsense.

    I disagee. And I don't assume high motives. Ridicule is important. It's value as a shock tactic, for jarring people out of their complacent assumptions is recognized not only in science but in literature. I have no doubt that satire stems in part from malicious motives as well as the desire for reform. It puts these both to good use.

    And it worked in my case. I can't tell you how much I was irked by those posters on audio sites who relentlessly mocked me and the other audiophiles. Why did they have to be so mean? No doubt it was from bad motives. Though I can't speak for anyone else I think that the mocking tone had a powerful effect that in the end was beneficial. I had to deal with the fact that an obviously intelligent person not only disagreed with me but thought that some of what I was saying was downright ludicrous. This was intolerable right up to the moment I realised that they were right.

[Xenophanes]

You seemed to have skipped over (2a), which is the meaning of faith in this context.

It is somewhat strange that he would use a regular dictionary for a technical subject.  For example, if I wanted to know what electrical impedance is, I would go to a technical work on the subject.  Same thing here: for a technical theological term, one should look at the relevant works.

I should point out that (2b) contains the word "proof" which is not the same as "evidence."  One can have evidence for something which is less than proof, and I suggest this is usually the way it is.

[Elgarian]

Ridicule is important. It's value as a shock tactic, for jarring people out of their complacent assumptions is recognized

Well, I did say this was a sticking point for me, and I did explain why. An alternative way of jarring people out of their complacent assumptions might be simply to ignore them. That's the choice I now make.