On 25-10-2009 19:30, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> On 25-10-2009 6:47, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> An interesting aside to this discussion:
>>>
>>>
http://gretachristina.typepad.com/greta_christinas_weblog/2009/10/when-anyone-is-watching.html

>>>
>>>
>>> Premise - Believers that argue for the value of the story, but not 
>>> the literal truth of it, yet get terribly offended by anyone saying, 
>>> "its made up", basically actually think like this: "We don't really 
>>> believe anything that you have demonstrated to be absurd...while 
>>> anyone is watching." Greta herself admits this is how she thought 
>>> about some things, like Tarot, depending on if she was talking to 
>>> other believers, or someone that didn't, before she finally gave up 
>>> any belief in it at all.
>>
>> You should also consider the reverse: why do atheists get upset if 
>> someone comes up to them and bluntly states that God does exist?
>>
> Annoyed maybe, but for the same reason that you would get annoyed at an 
> adult coming up to you and saying, "I believe in the tooth fairy, its 
> just too bad my teeth don't fall out anymore, I need the money." We 
> don't get all that upset about people believing it BS. If that was all 
> they did, there are thousands of stupid things people believe that would 
> upset us. What upsets us is that those people immediately think that 
> declaring belief in it means that they can, in the next sentence, start 
> talking bullshit about others, condemning things they don't understand, 
> undermining science, undermining freedom of expression, undermining 
> cultures they don't like, etc. They don't stop with just "believing", 
> most of them, on some level, think that the next logical step is to 
> start pissing people around them off by telling everyone how evil those 
> people are for not attending the same church, or how evil someone else 
> they never met is, because they don't abide by X random rule, which may 
> not even exists, as stated, in their silly book.

That was covered by the next two sentences, yes.

>> I think an important factor is that believing in God is not an 
>> independent factor. It is connected to every other believe and 
>> conviction one may have. I couldn't care less if the president of the 
>> US did believe in a god or not if it weren't for the fact that it 
>> influences his decisions. When I know that he doesn't care for nature, 
>> because his religion teaches that man was independently created to 
>> rule the world. Or that he was taught that those in power are there 
>> because God wants them there and that they are therefore justified in 
>> getting even more rich at the expense of others. Then it becomes very 
>> relevant indeed. (I know that strangely at precisely these points 
>> there are other Christian churches that preach precisely the opposite)
>>
> Meaningless. Its enough that far too many of them will turn right around 
> and insist that every damn thing they **did** use to make their decision 
> was meaningless, unimportant, and unnecessary, because "god" led them to 
> the choice. This is the thing that pisses **everyone** that is an 
> intellectual, from Christians who manage to mostly compartmentalize 
> things enough to still think about it, to humanists, to atheists, the 
> outright refusal, and apparent inability, of too many "believers" to 
> believe in, respect, or recognize, their own thinking and how they 
> reached a conclusion, and all too often, actually not just claim they 
> reached the result "without" something, but the turn right around and 
> declare, "And since I never need, or use X, no one should need X", right 
> after frakking using X to reach their original conclusions. You honestly 
> think that what we get annoyed at is mere "statement" that they believe 
> in something? Man do you have a distorted view of the issue...

Uhm, can you run that by me again. Preferable slightly more coherent.

>> What is often included in any religious or atheist packet is that 
>> believers are one group. In essence, if an atheist goes to a believer 
>> and say that he/she got the facts wrong, the atheist is at the same 
>> time implying that he/she is not really a true human.
> WTF? Project much? I have never heard on single person on my side of 
> this matter ***ever*** make such a statement. 

You never noticed it, that is not the same. And if I had reversed the 
roles that would not have changed the meaning, though you would probably 
not have reacted this way. I though it would be instructive to view the 
matter from the other side, and it was ;)

[snipped a lot more open doors]

> But, heh.. Keep insulting people with accusations of accusations they 
> never would make themselves. We are frakking used to it at this point.

Not sure if this is directed at me. If so, you missed.

BTW as you might remember I am an atheist living in Europe. Saul isn't 
living in the US either. What you express is, I think, mostly anger with 
the situation in the US. In an international newsgroup always remember 
that some things are rather peculiar to the US.

Post a reply to this message