 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed?
Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the search for
scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book "Calculating God"
by Sawyer is a fun read.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:19:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
> True enough. But one can conclude, for example, based on facts, that the
> risks of allowing slavery are too high, and the benefits insufficient,
> to hold that its a valid behavior. This concept, when based on
> "opinions", was both defended at part of the natural order of the
> universe and gods plan, and as something that god wouldn't accept, due
> to the other sides opinions of equality of justice and unreasonable
> cruelty (none of which was, at that time, equality of ability,
> intelligence, or race), by those who "had no" fact based position to
> derive their views from.
What constitutes justice or unreasonable cruelty, though? That's a
matter of opinion. There is a common basis for that opinion now (through
things such as the Geneva Conventions), but even within the bounds of
something like the GC, there is still question, for example, about
whether the use of a Taser constitutes unreasonable cruelty.
In and of iteself, perhaps it doesn't, but there can (and often is) a
situational component. It's like the training a police officer goes
through as regards the use of deadly force. Unprovoked is easy - there's
no case for deadly force. But you've got a criminal drawing down on you
and you've got a split second to decide - shoot or be shot, kill or be
killed - that's not something that's a fact-based decision, it's a split-
second opinion-based decision that potentially decides who walks away
from the incident.
> The problem I have with opinion is not that it isn't an important part
> of how societies work, its that it ***is*** an important part of how
> societies work, and, unfortunately it doesn't take much to derail
> opinion into complete idiocy using emotional appeals, and a lot of wild
> spinning.
That doesn't mean opinions are unimportant in society. This is a bit of
a straw-man argument, in fact - because it posits a situation where the
use of opinions can lead to "complete idiocy" and then concludes that
consequently, *all* opinion is bad.
> Its rather more difficult to do that when you have "empirical"
> grounds for forming such opinions.
By your own argument, that's not an opinion, though.
> I.e., not all opinions are equal.
> Unfortunately, one of the consequences of the dogmatic view of
> "equality", "fairness", and, "respect" in the US goes like this: "All
> ideas are equal, to be fair we have to listen to all of them and judge
> them in their own context, and we need to respect when people's ideas
> differ."
Now this I can agree with - we do tend to take this to an idiotic length
at times. But that's a matter of opinion - one that you and I share. ;-)
>> Agreement isn't required. Understanding isn't either, for that matter,
>> but I have found that understanding how someone with an alternative
>> viewpoint arrived at that conclusion leads to an understanding of how
>> to interact with that person in a constructive way. I've found this to
>> be an incredibly valuable skill to use given that many of the people I
>> work with professionally have strong personal religious faith. Even
>> for those whom I don't discuss religion with (which is most of them),
>> knowing the common set of experiences that they go through every week
>> when they go to church (for example) helps me understand how to
>> motivate them and get what I need from them.
>>
> Ok, to an extent, you are correct. But, there are obvious limits to such
> "understanding".
Sure. There are limits to everything.
> Most of the things the hardline atheists go on about
> are cases where they fully understand, often due to once "sharing" those
> views, how someone reached a conclusion, and they see both how its
> "incorrect", but how much effort is put into not seeing, intentionally
> ignoring, excusing, or finding "good things" in the very negative
> consequences of "reaching" those conclusions in the first place, or,
> sometimes, due to even how they reach them.
We all have our blind spots. Some people embrace them, and some don't
recognize they have them at all. But we all do.
> I mean, do you honestly think there is no consequence to, to use slavery
> as an example again, concluding that someone should be treated nearly
> equal, like a really smart animal, but still not accepted as equal in
> all ways, vs seeing them **as** "equal" in all ways to you? Of course
> not. The end result, in the short term, may be the same, when an
> injustice exists. In a more contemporary example, gay "separate but not
> quite equal secular rules", vs. "defending marriage". The later isn't
> even under any real threat, and the former is pure bullshit. You can't
> have separate but equal. The result is "never" equal, pretty much by
> definition. The moment you say "separate", you start already applying a
> "special rule", that says one gets to be seen, treated, or acted on,
> differently than the other. Its pretty much down hill from that point.
Shifting my frame of reference to the time when slavery was a common
thing in the US, I don't know that either of us *in that frame of
reference* (ie, with the knowledge that existed then) would necessarily
have been exposed to the idea that those minorities who were slaves
weren't somehow inferior. (Ugh, it's distasteful to even express that
idea). In a different time, who's to say how you or I would react? It's
easy to look back and say "that was wrong" because we have the benefit of
our current knowledge and experience, but if we'd been alive at the time,
our life experiences would've been very different, and that would've
shaped our perceptions. Remember that there *were* people who felt they
could *prove* that slaves were inferior. Even very intelligent people -
like those who put together the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of
Rights, etc. "All men are created equal" didn't apply to "all men" (and
certainly didn't apply to women).
> So, sure.. Understanding how to motivate someone is one thing. But..
> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out of
> doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped, to
> motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
Sometimes life ain't fair. I don't like that, but that's a fact proven
again and again.
>> Sometimes yes, people who have strong religious faith react badly when
>> they're told that they're not being rational. How do you react when
>> someone tells you you're talking nonsense when you're talking about
>> something that you have a strong personal investment in it? What I
>> find is that the presentation coming from someone with a point of view
>> often is not handled very tactfully. Understand that for people of
>> strong religious faith, when you start trying to prove that their view
>> is wrong, that is often perceived as an attack on the foundations of
>> everything they have built their life upon.
>>
> Well, I admit, I don't react "that" well. But I react worse when their
> reason for making the claim has no basis at all. There is a saying,
> something to the effect, "If you react badly to someone's comment about
> you, its because you recognize something of truth in it.", or something
> like that. Someone says I am not being rational about something, then
> either I admit it, I accept that I may be, after its explained, or I
> reject it, because their own "evidence" amount to not sharing my view,
> and therefor concluding that they are being rational, but I am not, for
> failing to agree with them. The later I have no sympathy or patience
> with.
I could see that. It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the
foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't
understand it. That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put yourself
in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted badly to it.
It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others react that way when
they feel the basis of their life is under attack. :-)
> I would never tell someone they where being irrational without
> "attempting" to explain why. Neither would the vast majority of other
> atheists I know (well, except when the person is being persistent, or
> keeps showing up, and does nothing but tell "us" we are wrong, without
> any other argument, then people get.. snippy.) But... Well, lets just
> say that for people who have been told all their lives that X view is
> right, and believing it makes them right, and you shouldn't really
> question these things, its real hard to get them to reflect at all on
> whether or not they are being rational, never mind actually get them to
> admit they are not.
Well, there again, though, it comes back to being perceived as an attack
on a foundational part of their life. If they believe some things are
not to be questioned and it works for them and doesn't cause harm (now
there's a highly subjective idea, what constitutes harm?) to others, then
it's not a problem.
> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I believe,
> I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about non-believers or
> sinner **has to be funny**.
Consider: Perhaps he was being satirical. Comedy is his career, and
some people do satire well enough that the humour is missed. The first
few episodes of The Colbert Report were like that; Stephen Colbert (the
person, not the character he plays) gave an interview on NPR and
explained what he was doing, and then it became clear what he was doing
(at least for us). He also fine-tuned his act so that it was more
apparent what he was doing.
> It wasn't so much a joke as mental masturbation. "Here is what I
> 'imagine' would happen, if I taped the guys mouth shut, locked them in a
> room, and read the Bible for hours at them." My only reaction to this
> was, "You don't have a clue how wrong you are, since you never talked to
> one.", or, alternatively, "Then again, after 5 minutes of what I imagine
> is even 'worse' BS than your comedy routine, I would jump out a window,
> preferably a from the 20th floor." lol
It sounds to me more like he was providing a commentary on how ridiculous
some bible-thumpers are, to take the situation to an absurd level to
point out the absurdity of forcing a religious view on another person.
> Or, as someone put it. How do you "fairly" explain away the "problems"
> presented in 20 minutes by someone, with only 20 minutes to rebut them,
> when *each* so called problem is a 20 minute lecture, and they just gave
> you 500 things to "respond to". You can't. And, its how "they" stack the
> game.
People who don't want to be convinced they're wrong employ a wide variety
of techniques to prevent being told they're wrong. Ultimately, those who
don't want to be convinced won't, no matter what you do. The ability to
act and think as an individual comes with that as baggage, but I think
our ability to think independently has great benefits as well. Life
would be pretty boring if we all thought the same thing and believed the
same thing.
One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what
we believe in. The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for
example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the scientific
community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems that we are
discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in practical terms.
If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very idea of Evolution,
it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances. The lack of a challenge
often leads to complacency and lazy thinking. But having to structure a
debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
ridiculous, helps science.
> Ah, but.. There is a rising tide of people in the US that not only fall
> for everything said, starting at the "blogged about it" stage, and
> presents "everyone" prior to that, including news agencies that don't
> present "both sides", or actively promote the "big
> science/pharma/government/whatever" side of things, as being "part of a
> vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
So what's the alternative? And to add a constraint, an alternative that
doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of view?
> And, well.. If you believe in one conspiracy, like say, religion, then
> its easier to believe in the "war one Christmas", and once you get that,
> you find it that much easier to imagine the "war on religion", etc. The
> most "conspiracies" you willingly accept, the more you believe, since
> many of them are "underpinned" by the same assumptions, starting with
> the idea that you have found the one true path, and those that haven't
> are, to one degree or another, out to get you.
That's one of the risks you run with a free press and freedom of speech.
What these people say may be total lunacy, but they have every right to
say it (at least in the US under the protections of the first
amendment). The alternative there is to restrict free speech. Do we
really want to go down that road?
>> But this is a bit of a shift in the discussion we're having as well,
>> because it doesn't really tie into religious faith - it's more closely
>> related to generic belief. Not that the two are entirely dissimilar,
>> mind.
>>
> Well. I don't exactly agree. How do you separate them, really? Because
> one sort of belief is old, and handed down, sort of, while others are
> not? You could call almost anything, by that standard, "religion",
> including patriotism. Then, what.. all ideas that you get yourself,
> instead of learning from parents, or organizations, are "not"? Where is
> the line drawn?
Well, that's why I said "not that the two are entirely dissimilar". :-)
>> should be seen to be being treated lightly or with ridicule - you might
>> as well be calling them "stupid" or worse - and we all know where that
>> leads.
>>
> Irrational responses,
Emotional response, the result of feeling one is under attack. That's
actually a pretty rational response - to react emotionally when a core
belief you hold is under attack.
> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I
> be wrong." Another "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and
> often ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
> right to not be offended." Bullshit!
I agree with this. However that also means that you and I don't have a
right to be offended by religion. That's a two-way street.
> Sorry, but "religion" is just another object in the world to me, and its
> either mild, and therefor safe, but don't "dare" do something stupid,
> like supporting something that isn't, or its insane rubbish, and I
> **will** call them on it. To ask be to do otherwise is to disrespect
> others who fight against the excesses and willing/unwilling support of
> those excesses, and everyone that has ever been hurt by such. They
> deserve it more than than some believer's personal ego.
Just don't be surprised that when you do, you'll cause offense or you'll
get an emotional response.
> That said. Not stopping long enough to find out what I *am* arguing
> against, but just concluding that it is a personal attack, is, imho, at
> least as good a reason for calling someone an irrational fool as
> "actually" belonging to, or supporting, what ever it is I *am* arguing
> about.
It's about presentation, Patrick. If your goal is to persuade someone
that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using
inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise
their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back. Using that kind
of approach isn't going to change anyone's mind, and is likely going to
be a frustrating exercise for you as well, assuming that your goal is to
change people's minds about beliefs held for a lifetime.
> Hmm. Ok, then how is this, "Its not the one its directed at that is at
> issue, since they are unlikely to change, its those watching, who see
> that the only response they can give is incoherent, or non-existent."
Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that gives
the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from those
on the sidelines. If you want to affect those watching from the
sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a
victim. What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're
more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the fence)
to *help* the "victim".
> For the most part, such people are not listening to what you are saying
> to start with. Your only option is, "don't play the game at all", or,
> "make sure someone else sees how **they** wanted to play it, and why
> that is stupid."
Sometimes the best way to play is to not play. An emotional response on
your part (whether real or perceived) isn't going to convince people
you're right. Well, that's maybe not entirely true, you might convince
those who have no capacity for an empathetic response, but there aren't
really that many people who wouldn't have empathy for someone who they
perceived as being attacked unjustly.
> Well. Here it is different. But, go to one of these radical sites some
> times and look at the content... Unchallenged, they can **claim** you
> are a) afraid to challenge them, b) don't have any answers to their
> imaginary issues, or c) you ran away, because you know you would lose.
> On their own sites they "bolster" this opinion, by deleting anything
> that "remotely" disagrees, or fails to praise them.
Welcome to the idea of free speech. :-) These "radical sites" are not
public spaces, but are privately owned, and they have the right to
enforce whatever they want and to say whatever they want as long as it
doesn't break some other law (like incitement laws and the like). If I
want to create a website that's viewable by the public that "proves" that
the sky is red and I only allow comments to be posted that support that
notion, that's my right as the site operator. It may be ridiculous, but
ultimately I have that right and you can't stop me from doing it.
> Part of the point of
> making them look even more foolish is to show fence sitters that the
> issue isn't your "unwillingness" to face them, but that you can't stop
> laughing while doing so. ;)
At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question of
"is it even worth my time?". If you or I spent all of our time trying to
convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are ridiculous,
we'd have scarce time to ourselves.
> Some of them though.. Like the Catholic League, thankfully just "lie"
> about how many they have. Someone worked out that, based on their public
> records, and the dues needed to "be a member", either each one "claimed"
> only actually put in about 30 cents, or the numbers where "exaggerated",
> by like.. 10,000 times the actual number, and there where less than a
> few hundred "actual" people in the entire organization.
I think part of the problem is that the tax law is too convoluted; it
allows people to work around disclosing what their actual assets are.
The LDS Church (again as a convenient example) is a huge business with
large business holdings. Beneficial Life, for example - a major
insurance company in the US - is (or was, this could have changed, I
suppose) owned by the church. What do you suppose the tax advantages are
for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious organization?
>
>> Logically, if the scientific principles are sound, then it shouldn't
>> trip the scientific world up too badly. Either that or the premise has
>> a flaw in it, no?
>>
> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic math
> and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the
things that happens in a free society.
> This principle is only true if science is "allowed" to seek the correct
> answers.
Taking a "devil's advocate" position, at what cost do those answers
come? Do we decide a class of people we can reasonably agree on as
people (ie, let's leave the debate about embryonic stem cells out here)
need to die in order to continue the research? Let's say all people with
red hair are determined to have the right genetic makeup to advanced stem
cell research, but the research can only be achieved by extracting
something that they need in order to live, thus causing their death.
> A lot of people would like it to "start" with what they think
> are the right answers, then throw out anything that doesn't fit.
> Strangely, when the Islamic world does this, its a sign of the
> corruption of Islam, while Christians doing the same thing are "trying
> to save the US from communist and atheistic views". o.O
Well, that comes back to absolutist points of view, but we've been over
that. I also look at that and say it's ridiculous.
>> That's why often walking away is the best option. As someone wise once
>> said, "it's sometimes better to be silent and be thought a fool than to
>> open your mouth and remove all doubt."
>>
> No it isn't. Walking away lets them *claim* that you refused to
> challenge their views, where afraid to, didn't have answers, or knew you
> where wrong.
So what? Why is their opinion of such importance to you?
> It doesn't matter if they "look" silly when prancing around
> with floppy shoes. If all anyone sees is, "Bozo the creationist has a
> presentation at so and so place.", they are not going to see the "Bozo",
> part, all they are going to see is the "sub-headline" which says,
> "circus claims scientists had to evidence against controversial theory."
> You "do" have to show people that they are silly. Because, well.. They
> gave up the nose and shoes two years ago, and while they still where the
> poka-dot underwear, they figured out that keeping it "under" a business
> suit gave them more "apparent" credibility. Your only option at that
> point is, sadly, to go there and pull their pants down, while hoping
> they didn't change tactics "yet again", in the mean time.
Then you risk turning them into a victim, and that never turns out well
for you, but it helps them.
>
> Thankfully, most such seem to lack imagination as much as humor. Comes
> from having a mind focused to much on "one view", that you can't "see"
> anything else. Thus, the idea that red noses are high comedy, while
> thinking George Carlin is a boring loud mouth. ;)
Well, to some, Carlin was a boring loud mouth. That's a matter of
personal taste.
But now I need to go and listen to the 7 words routine again - I don't
think he was a boring loud mouth, and I miss that he's not here any more.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>
> See, I don't think that is at all relevant.
I could see why you think that, but I disagree. Even bad people can do
good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds
starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having those
people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed. But before supporting a
program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for alternatives that
didn't have that baggage.
> Heck, we had 8 years of a total fracking loon running things, and no one
> in Reagan's time would have imagined that electing one overly religious
> person "might" a few decades later lead to an even more religious one,
> who was a total fracking moron. People with "good works" in their mind
> often fail to see clearly what the worst case could be, for indirectly
> supporting the bad parts too.
The alternative to having another GW Bush, though, is to not have free
elections. There's always a worst case, even when the guy you want gets
into office.
> And.. When you get those that "only" see as far as their own "personal"
> connection to god, afterlife, and salvation... What are those people
> looking at, making the world "really" better?
Depends on their interpretation of their beliefs. I can see that some
would make the world better, because they would approach it from the
standpoint of "war and death is a last resort, first strike is not an
option" and try to persuade people that ideas like freedom are a good
thing. There are those who believe in God, the afterlife, and salvation
who also believe that in order to enter "the Kingdom of Heaven" that they
have to do good works and try to make the world a better place for all.
What I find often times is that people who believe that tend to not be a
member of an organized religion, but they are religious. I've got
friends in the Portland area who consider themselves to be deeply
religious people and who consider themselves to be Christian. They
couldn't tell me the last time they went to church, but they could tell
me about the people whom they helped teach farming skills to and helped
to build homes for in El Salvador - something they do a few months out of
every few years.
They're undecided about God creating the Earth - they don't see it as an
important part of their faith. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't - it's not
the sort of thing they give a lot of thought to because their mission is
to help people by going and doing.
> Or, how many only do what
> they "think" is in their means, helping the few they can, and let
> everything else to run its course? Too many for my tastes. And, that
> isn't even when the belief in "religion's" influence on the world isn't
> so deeply buried in the culture, like it is in many black communities,
> that its virtually impossible to even "claim" that a church could be
> doing harm.
See above. I should mention that not only can they not remember the last
time they went to church, but like me, they have a strong distrust of
organized religion. I think maybe we need to make a demarcation here
between organized religion and personal religion, because the two are
very different.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Shifting my frame of reference to the time when slavery was a common
> thing in the US, I don't know that either of us *in that frame of
> reference* (ie, with the knowledge that existed then) would necessarily
> have been exposed to the idea that those minorities who were slaves
> weren't somehow inferior. (Ugh, it's distasteful to even express that
> idea). In a different time, who's to say how you or I would react? It's
> easy to look back and say "that was wrong" because we have the benefit of
> our current knowledge and experience, but if we'd been alive at the time,
> our life experiences would've been very different, and that would've
> shaped our perceptions. Remember that there *were* people who felt they
> could *prove* that slaves were inferior. Even very intelligent people -
> like those who put together the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of
> Rights, etc. "All men are created equal" didn't apply to "all men" (and
> certainly didn't apply to women).
>
And.. A logical examination of the "evidence", even then, would have
shown that the there wasn't any "factual" evidence to be had at all in
the argument. Back then you could point out lack of education, lack of
equal treatment, and a whole host of other things that made someone
"appear" inferior, and show examples that derailed the argument.
Today... Sigh.. Lets just say that you can't go around claiming that you
are "equal" in all ways, then isolate yourself from the rest of the
nation, hold onto ideas that undermine the assertion, deny your own
mistakes, and blame them on others, then stare in blinkered amazement at
all the people saying, "Grandpappy was right, them <insert minority>
really are inferior!"
If you ignore the historical reason why some communities are they way
they are.. there is more "evidence" today of the possible inequality of
some people, than there ever was back when it was simply "assumed".
Feeling you can prove something is **not** the same as having solid fact
to support it. I don't give a frack what someone "feels" they can prove.
They invariably trot out a lot of things they "imagine" no one has
responded to before, make a lot of assertions about evidence they can
never actually provide, then eventually just admit, if honest, that they
only "feel" that its right, and "imagine" that someone, someplace else,
has better evidence of the view.
Its like the argument some theists make about how Dawkins et-al only
attack simplistic versions of religion, but there is some "great" and
"solid" one out there, which gets ignored all the time. Then you see an
article interviewing the "greatest minds in theology", and... all the
fracking "deep" arguments are the same ones that people get told they
should be ignoring, in favor of the "deeper" arguments. The only thing
"deep" in any of it is the depth of the hole they must be standing in,
while imagining that the guy in the next hole has a "better" argument.
Its.. positively absurd.
>> So, sure.. Understanding how to motivate someone is one thing. But..
>> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out of
>> doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped, to
>> motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
>
> Sometimes life ain't fair. I don't like that, but that's a fact proven
> again and again.
>
These are people that stuff 10 aces up their sleeve, then get cheered
when they claim to win, while you are booed, for pointing out that *no*
poker hand has 6 aces in it. Its not that life isn't fair, its that one
side has no honor, morals, or compunction against cheating, but
everyone, due to indoctrination from childhood, and being told that
"some people" are above suspicion or skepticism, believed *them* when
they say they are the ones with hight moral standards, and the guy
calling them on it hasn't any. Fair and unfair imply "the possibility"
of fairness. But, when you know you will lose in that circumstance, and
you have no honor, you make sure that the dude you want to lose has no
armor, a blunt stick, once hand tied behind their back, and that, when
it comes time for the fight, its an 600 pound, hungry lion, not a 3 inch
field mouse, they find themselves confronted by. Oh, and.. You glue
mouse ears on, and shave, the lion, and take blurry photos, so you can
still claim it was "seasoned warrior vs. field mouse" to the newspapers
when the guy is bleeding on the ground at the end.
Fair? I would settle for just honestly "unfair".
> I could see that. It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the
> foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't
> understand it. That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put yourself
> in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted badly to it.
> It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others react that way when
> they feel the basis of their life is under attack. :-)
>
But, that's just it. If someone is attacking the foundation of your
life, ask why, don't just get pissed about it. At the very least, *you*
may be seriously wrong about what the foundation is. And, frankly..
anyone that thinks their "faith" is the foundation, not their family,
life experiences, loved ones, and friends, are doing "massive"
disservice to everything that actually "means" anything. Anyone claiming
that their faith means "more" than that.. well, I haven't seen too many
who think that way, when being honest about it, and the few that do,
have no friends, rejected their families, and are usually seriously
unhinged, if not dangerous.
>> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
>> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I believe,
>> I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about non-believers or
>> sinner **has to be funny**.
>
> Consider: Perhaps he was being satirical.
Ok.. I rewatched it and.. He isn't as blindingly boring as Ben Stein,
and he "is" trying to be, vaguely, satirical. Mostly.. He starts off
with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",
and then starts wandering every damn logical fallacy, blind assertion
and over repeated bit if BS ever invented, *including* a variation of
the "tornado in a junk yard" nonsense. I am surprised he didn't go, "And
then there is god's perfect food, the banana."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmrevhzVcD8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.asylum.co.uk%2F2009%2F05%2F29%2Fatheists-or-believers-whos-funnier&feature=player_embedded
I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out "wrong"
things. Its like if someone gave the biggest right wing creationist
websites on the internet a mouth piece, and assumed that if "he" smiled
and laughed at his own jokes, it was "actually" funny. Mostly, its just
an endless diatribe about what he "imagines" is wrong with atheists.
See.. Comedy is supposed to point out things people "do" believe, and
why its absurd, not make shit up about what you "imagine" they believe,
then make long whiny speeches about how wrong it is.
If this guy was on a forum, instead of a stage, no one would be
laughing. Why? Because the only "joke" he makes is in the first few
moments, when he goes, "Oh, I never had one of them in my house
before!". The rest.. Is just diatribe. There is no, "And then they
brought up this argument, so I shot it down.", or, "He/she said X, and I
had a come back." a 4 minute speech about all the BS you "imagine" is
wrong with something is "not" a comedy routine, its a sermon.
> One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what
> we believe in. The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for
> example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the scientific
> community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems that we are
> discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in practical terms.
> If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very idea of Evolution,
> it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances.
Bullocks. We where making progress even without them. The only thing the
recent ID movement has done is generate a "few" cases where people dug
around in papers that where ***already*** published, 4-5 years before,
but which the creationists didn't bother to look for, which already
showed why they where wrong. Well, in one minor case they "may" have
taken a slightly closer look at one thing they claimed to be
"irreducible", but, the reality is, everything they have said was
"already" refuted, multiple times, by things published years before ID,
the Disco Institute, or Dover, where ever even on the radar.
This is how ID works:
1. See something that looks designed.
2. Google a few papers for key words that might "imply" design.
3. Ignore 500 other papers, and decades of research in "real" sources,
like Pubmed (or claim you looked there, but didn't find anything...)
4. Assert that evolutionists haven't looked at it.
5. Stare incomprehensibly at the 500 papers, 3 books and 2,000 research
programs "already in existence" which address the imaginary problem already.
6. Go back to 1.
> The lack of a challenge
> often leads to complacency and lazy thinking. But having to structure a
> debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
> ridiculous, helps science.
>
No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad", and there are people
actually trying to either replace it with something worse, or get rid of
it entirely, and most of the politicians are too fracking ignorant to
get why this is not a good thing. So.. Yeah, I am sure that figuring out
that the Titanic is sinking "after" your ankles are already wet is
"useful" in some vague sense. Otherwise.. they haven't done jack, since
100% of their arguments have been "entirely" on "old" definitions, "bad"
statistical math, "incorrect" assumptions about the state, direction and
progress of the science, and a "completely" wrong assertion that
quibbles over "details" about how much, and when certain "kinds" of
evolution happen, is a sign that science can't decide on "how" it
happens in general. I.e., not knowing how much of the water on your lawn
is wet from the sprinklers or recent rain means you are wrong about both
how rain *and* sprinklers work, and you need to invent "intelligent
wetting" to replace them. How does that help "shake up" the scientific
community?
>> Ah, but.. There is a rising tide of people in the US that not only fall
>> for everything said, starting at the "blogged about it" stage, and
>> presents "everyone" prior to that, including news agencies that don't
>> present "both sides", or actively promote the "big
>> science/pharma/government/whatever" side of things, as being "part of a
>> vast conspiracy to hide the truth.
>
> So what's the alternative? And to add a constraint, an alternative that
> doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of view?
>
All you can do is point out why the conspiracy theorists are wrong, and
sometimes that "means" saying things that some of their supporters, like
it or not, are going to see as "attacks". Its impossible to avoid those
heavily invested in fallacies making such claims. Just because they do,
and are deeply offended by such imagined "attacks", we should just stop
doing anything that bugs them? Again, you can't do that. Its seen by
such people, and those that generally support them, as backing down for
lack of conviction, or facts, not as, "refusing to engage the wacko."
>> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I
>> be wrong." Another "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and
>> often ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
>> right to not be offended." Bullshit!
>
> I agree with this. However that also means that you and I don't have a
> right to be offended by religion. That's a two-way street.
>
Uh.. No, thought I was clear. We have no right to "not be offended", and
by extension, we can be offended by anything we want too. Its like free
speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
"like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
listening too it. If I did, then I wouldn't be exercising "my" rights.
Sure its a "two way street". That is why respect has to be earned, not
handed to every half wit that shows up with some sort of opinion. They
can hold it all they want. They want me to respect it... well, accepting
that they hold it isn't the "same" as respecting it. Yet, truth be told,
most of the people we have been talking about a) assume respect must
come automatically to "their" ideas, especially if religious, and this
is practically written in the same law that ironically is "supposed" to
limit its influence of the people that are not *supposed* to be giving
it undue respect, and b) no one else's deserves the same treatment.
Well.. Sorry, but (b) pretty much automatically denies (a), in my mind,
even if it wasn't based, almost exclusively, on the ignorance of the
other sides actual positions, failure to understand the evidence, and/or
random assertions that where pulled out of their imaginations, instead
of based on anything in the real world.
>> That said. Not stopping long enough to find out what I *am* arguing
>> against, but just concluding that it is a personal attack, is, imho, at
>> least as good a reason for calling someone an irrational fool as
>> "actually" belonging to, or supporting, what ever it is I *am* arguing
>> about.
>
> It's about presentation, Patrick. If your goal is to persuade someone
> that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using
> inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise
> their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back.
Yeah, yeah. Framing. As in, framing the argument to the point where you
find yourself painted in to a corner, because you where unwilling to be
a bit less than "nice. But, seriously, its beside the point. I am not so
stupid I don't know to adjust my approach when I am dealing with someone
that "is" able to change opinion, and not addressing the "audience"
through ridicule of the object my comments are directed at. The argument
amount to, "Well, someone might be listening, who would change their
mind if you where nicer." But, the truth is, most of them won't change
their minds because they have "never" found themselves in a situation
where someone wouldn't back down from their supposed spiritual leader,
or continued to challenge them. People don't give up, or question,
religion, or even its assertions, because other people "play nice" and
try to avoid offending. They do so because other people "do" have
drastically different opinions, which they will defend as aggressively,
and "some of them" wonder how anyone could be so "sure", and go looking,
then find out that, in the case of creationism, they have been lied to
since the first day someone sat them in a pew.
Look, I guess my point is that the same tactic that works on one person
doesn't work on another, and being directly, and unapologetically,
challenged, instead of someone dancing around the issues, "will" show
some people that there are those strongly willing to defend something,
not just a lot of people trying really hard to mix two incompatible
things together. Some of them are going to ask, "Ok, how can they be so
sure." You need both tigers "and" kittens in your tool box, because the
other side isn't going to just go, "Oh, well, since they are using
kittens, we should stick with those too."
>> Hmm. Ok, then how is this, "Its not the one its directed at that is at
>> issue, since they are unlikely to change, its those watching, who see
>> that the only response they can give is incoherent, or non-existent."
>
> Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that gives
> the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from those
> on the sidelines. If you want to affect those watching from the
> sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a
> victim. What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're
> more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the fence)
> to *help* the "victim".
>
They claim "victim" regardless of how nice you are. They claim fracking
victim even when 90% of the listeners are "convinced" they won the
argument. Are we even talking about the same thing? I am not talking
about just showing up an calling someone names. I am talking about
showing why they "deserve" some of the names. If people can't see the
reasons, they are not going to change their opinion just because I, or
anyone else, said it in a "nice way". On the contrary, in most of the
situations I have ever seen, "they" are the ones name calling, claiming
other people think certain things, misquoting them, and committing both
slander and libel, *then* getting offended when someone fights back. If
I was talking about just walking into a room with one and blurting out,
"you're an idiot", you would have a point. I am not.
These people could make it look like the fracking talking maple syrup
bottle, Ms. Butterworth, was trying to leap at them with a knife, and
the press would fall for it, even *with* the discussion on fracking
tape. Just look at what they do with Dawkins. The guy is nice, polite,
non-aggressive, he will state, "I think religion is made up", in a tone
that would make you imagine that he was discussing the time on his
watch. Look at what "just saying that" gets you. The wackos practically
insist he showed up dressed as a ninja and tried to rip their throats
out with his teeth. This isn't someone taking "horrible" offense at the
suggestion that someone might not believe in god, the way they do, this
is someone "intentionally" making it sound like they where attacked by a
commando raid and held at gun point.
If you can't even be mild and "nice" and avoid being called a monster...
>> Part of the point of
>> making them look even more foolish is to show fence sitters that the
>> issue isn't your "unwillingness" to face them, but that you can't stop
>> laughing while doing so. ;)
>
> At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question of
> "is it even worth my time?". If you or I spent all of our time trying to
> convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are ridiculous,
> we'd have scarce time to ourselves.
>
Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades". If its worth "their" time to
make multi-billion dollar organizations "dedicated" to telling people
how unwilling "we" are to address their imaginary points.. Somehow I
tend to suspect you better **find** time to deal with it. Just because
something is ridiculous doesn't mean it won't become the "norm", if no
one does anything to point out how ridiculous it actually is,
**especially** the people whose jobs are directly effected by whether or
not some twit gets themselves elected to office some place, then votes
the next week to ban vaccines in the state, along with some other
supporters who, "don't know the facts, but heard about that poor woman",
or some BS, based on such "ridiculous" crap.
You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea. All it takes is
enough fools to make the truth "illegal". Just look at the insane
bullshit that goes on in the so called "war on drugs". Which is more
about propaganda than actually "stopping it", which would require.. most
of the money wasted going to preventions, recovery and research on how
and why they work, and not on busting 5,000 pounds of relatively
harmless weed, even while a ton of something worse enters some place
else, and 50 new crack houses open up.
>> Some of them though.. Like the Catholic League, thankfully just "lie"
>> about how many they have. Someone worked out that, based on their public
>> records, and the dues needed to "be a member", either each one "claimed"
>> only actually put in about 30 cents, or the numbers where "exaggerated",
>> by like.. 10,000 times the actual number, and there where less than a
>> few hundred "actual" people in the entire organization.
>
> I think part of the problem is that the tax law is too convoluted; it
> allows people to work around disclosing what their actual assets are.
> The LDS Church (again as a convenient example) is a huge business with
> large business holdings. Beneficial Life, for example - a major
> insurance company in the US - is (or was, this could have changed, I
> suppose) owned by the church. What do you suppose the tax advantages are
> for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious organization?
>
No kidding..
>> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
>> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic math
>> and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
>
> There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the
> things that happens in a free society.
>
Would be a nice argument if not for the "minor" flaw that "some" such
idiocies lead to increasingly "less" free societies.
>> This principle is only true if science is "allowed" to seek the correct
>> answers.
>
> Taking a "devil's advocate" position, at what cost do those answers
> come? Do we decide a class of people we can reasonably agree on as
> people (ie, let's leave the debate about embryonic stem cells out here)
> need to die in order to continue the research? Let's say all people with
> red hair are determined to have the right genetic makeup to advanced stem
> cell research, but the research can only be achieved by extracting
> something that they need in order to live, thus causing their death.
>
If we where talking about anything to extreme, you would have a point.
We are talking about people claiming a threat to a way of life that
***isn't even*** the one they claim they based it on in the first place,
with entirely imaginary consequences, if they fail to defend it, at the
expense of halting, reversing, or at least, in the US, slowing to a
crawl, most of science (and no, evolution is, by their own admission,
just what they "thought" was the weakest link in the chain). A better
argument would be, "Would it have been a good idea to jail the nut that
caused the thugi people to self exterminate, by abandoning all their
food, walking into the wastes, and starving to death, *before* it
happened, or is there some 'right' gained by it being religious, that
said that Britain should have just sat back and watched, even if they
had even, at the time, been aware of it happening, or their
representatives willing to do anything?"
I am sure that, should enough creationists ever get into power and start
banning things in science they don't like, it won't be the end of the
world, but.. what country is going to accept the millions of refugees
that leave in disgust over it, or in the years that follow, as they
institute more and more religious laws, take away more freedoms, and
make the country more an more like.. well, Afghanistan or Iran? lol
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:24 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote:
>
>> Stephen wrote:
>>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:57:34 -0700, Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>>
>>>> andrel wrote:
>>>>> but it gives you no useful information.
>>>> It's really a test of "are you a fanatic" or not, atheist style. :-)
>>> I don't think so.
>>> Maybe you have been influenced too much by the Evolution Vs Intelligent Design
>>> debate. Who is saying that a higher intelligence is God, other than your wackos
>>> who are trying to slip it in the back door?
>> Nobody. That's the point.
>>
>
> Is this a case of: Did. Didn't. Did. Didn't. Did. Didn't. Didn't. Did. Didn't.
> Did. Didn't. ?
>
More like:
1. We don't know, but not likely yours
2. Did so!
3. Repeat at #1
Sometimes they get semi-creative, depending on whether this week they
have Casey Luskin chained in the basement or not, and try:
1. Wasn't designed.
2. Was, but maybe by like.. snicker.. space aliens.
3. Repeat as #1
They can't seem to get their own "leaders" to agree that ID isn't
religion, and isn't about the Abrahamic god, instead of just "some
undefined intelligence, that somehow was around, some place". Once in a
while they take turns slapping each other in the face, then it all
settles down to "We are not 'specifically' talking about the god of the
Bible.", again, for a few days, then one of the morons babbles the wrong
thing again, and they have to try to sweep it under the carpet.
Mind, last 4-5 months, it almost looks like they have totally given up
on the fiction, or... lost track of the muzzle they use on their
leaders. Can't be making the ones that "took it serious" that it was
about design, but not theology, too happy, but then.. the ID people
don't bother to remove people from their list of supporters over such
trivial things as, "No, I don't support them.", "Hell, they lied to
me.", "Oh, it 'was' about theology? Count me out now.", or anything
short of, apparently, actually giving up ID (and possibly not even then,
if you ever did previously).
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed?
>
> Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the search
> for scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book
> "Calculating God" by Sawyer is a fun read.
>
That was the one that can be summed up like..
O = L * 1/G + C
I.e., Odds = chance of leprechauns existing * 1/odds of finding pots of
gold coins + number of 4 leaf clovers in your lawn. lol
Yeah. Had a real good laugh at that one. Its "almost" as funny as the
stuff the ID people come up with for the odds of evolution or
irreducible complexity. You know, the rules of both impossible things
you can "prove" actually happen with a simple computer program running
for like 2 minutes, in Javascript.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>> See, I don't think that is at all relevant.
>
> I could see why you think that, but I disagree. Even bad people can do
> good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds
> starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having those
> people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed. But before supporting a
> program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for alternatives that
> didn't have that baggage.
>
All I can say to this is.. If it was the **only** group doing it, I
might provisionally agree with you. Yet, it usually isn't, and if
anything, its the ones with an alternate agenda that promote themselves
so much its not always "obvious" that an alternative even exists. Good
example of a case where good is intended, and done, but not as much as
"should be", which is a similar case, is "breast cancer awareness".
There are thousands of groups that collect "specifically" for breast
cancer research, but they are overshadowed, and nearly unheard of,
because of one highly visible group, who spends close to 80% of
everything they take in, "advocating" for the group, instead of giving
it to the research projects. So.. What happens when such a highly
visible group has "little or no" intention of helping "anyone" beyond
promoting their own appearance of "goodness"? Say.. most mega-churches.
People that help feed the poor, not because they, as a group, really
want that, but because "appearing" to do so helps bring in more
supporters, and more money.
Its like the old days with the church, in Europe. Take in the equivalent
of millions, if not billions, build a lot of temples, but.. when
feeding, clothing or "helping" the poor or hungry, buy the cheapest
cloth, the poorest food, etc. Feed them what the clergy wouldn't touch,
and the not "quite" so poor wouldn't feed their pigs.
We can thank "secular" systems for making it so that the modern
equivalent to this is almost a feast by those days standards, but it
doesn't change the actual "intent", or "thinking" of those in charge,
one bit. Just makes it harder to call them on it.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Hmm. Depends, what is the "evidence" that it was designed?
>>
>> Oh, and as an aside, if you want a fun fiction book involving the
>> search for scientific proof of the existence of a Creator, the book
>> "Calculating God" by Sawyer is a fun read.
>>
> That was the one that can be summed up like..
>
> O = L * 1/G + C
HuH? WTF are you babbling about?
> I.e., Odds = chance of leprechauns existing * 1/odds of finding pots of
> gold coins + number of 4 leaf clovers in your lawn. lol
I take it you didn't actually read the book, right?
Incidentally, he also did one called "Terminal Experiment" which examines
what happens if you find scientific evidence for the soul, reincarnation,
life after death, etc. Also a fun read, altho not (for me) as thought
provoking or discussion-worthy.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Insanity is a small city on the western
border of the State of Mind.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 17:51:10 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> of Independence, the Bill of Rights, etc. "All men are created equal"
>> didn't apply to "all men" (and certainly didn't apply to women).
>>
> And.. A logical examination of the "evidence", even then, would have
> shown that the there wasn't any "factual" evidence to be had at all in
> the argument.
Sure, there wasn't. But again, that's a product of hindsight. Some
people thought there was incontrovertible proof that "white" people were
superior.
> If you ignore the historical reason why some communities are they way
> they are.. there is more "evidence" today of the possible inequality of
> some people, than there ever was back when it was simply "assumed".
>
> Feeling you can prove something is **not** the same as having solid fact
> to support it. I don't give a frack what someone "feels" they can prove.
> They invariably trot out a lot of things they "imagine" no one has
> responded to before, make a lot of assertions about evidence they can
> never actually provide, then eventually just admit, if honest, that they
> only "feel" that its right, and "imagine" that someone, someplace else,
> has better evidence of the view.
The standards of evidence are something that has changed over time.
Applying today's standards to the historical application of what was
accepted as scientific evidence is an application of hindsight. It was
observable that the sun revolved around the earth and not the other way
around. That was something that was not disputed often and those who did
dispute it tended to be ridiculed even by their scientific peers.
>>> Some things either work or don't, and if you can motivate someone out
>>> of doing them right, there are 50 other people, far better equipped,
>>> to motivate them to do it wrong, or not at all.
>>
>> Sometimes life ain't fair. I don't like that, but that's a fact proven
>> again and again.
>>
> These are people that stuff 10 aces up their sleeve, then get cheered
> when they claim to win, while you are booed, for pointing out that *no*
> poker hand has 6 aces in it. Its not that life isn't fair, its that one
It sure seems to me like you're basically saying "but it isn't FAIR!".
Because if life was fair, then this:
> side has no honor, morals, or compunction against cheating, but
> everyone, due to indoctrination from childhood, and being told that
> "some people" are above suspicion or skepticism,
wouldn't be a factor.
> calling them on it hasn't any. Fair and unfair imply "the possibility"
> of fairness. But, when you know you will lose in that circumstance, and
> you have no honor, you make sure that the dude you want to lose has no
> armor, a blunt stick, once hand tied behind their back, and that, when
> it comes time for the fight, its an 600 pound, hungry lion, not a 3 inch
> field mouse, they find themselves confronted by. Oh, and.. You glue
> mouse ears on, and shave, the lion, and take blurry photos, so you can
> still claim it was "seasoned warrior vs. field mouse" to the newspapers
> when the guy is bleeding on the ground at the end.
>
> Fair? I would settle for just honestly "unfair".
"Unfair" implies the possibility of fairness, just as "fair" does.
Some people fight dirty. Ugly little fact of life. Some people fight to
win, and they generally take the stand that the winner is the one left
standing and that they should fight to win at all costs. Again, sad but
true fact of life when it comes to debating ideas.
>> I could see that. It's a very similar reaction that those who feel the
>> foundation of their life is under attack from someone who doesn't
>> understand it. That's the sort of thing I mean when I say "put
>> yourself in their shoes" - you've been there, done that, and reacted
>> badly to it. It shouldn't be so difficult to understand why others
>> react that way when they feel the basis of their life is under attack.
>> :-)
>>
> But, that's just it. If someone is attacking the foundation of your
> life, ask why, don't just get pissed about it.
When the attack takes the form of "You're wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong
WRONG WRONG WRONG!", it's (a) a little hard to get a word in edgeways,
and (b) again puts the recipient on the defensive. Defensive people tend
to not examine their own motivations, but to question the motivations of
the people who are putting them on the defensive. It's rare that the
motivations of the offender are viewed in a good light in such
circumstances.
> At the very least, *you*
> may be seriously wrong about what the foundation is. And, frankly..
> anyone that thinks their "faith" is the foundation, not their family,
> life experiences, loved ones, and friends, are doing "massive"
> disservice to everything that actually "means" anything. Anyone claiming
> that their faith means "more" than that.. well, I haven't seen too many
> who think that way, when being honest about it, and the few that do,
> have no friends, rejected their families, and are usually seriously
> unhinged, if not dangerous.
I have seen people like that, and they generally are very good people. I
had a good friend who died recently (sudden heart attack) who was
absolutely convinced that Obama being elected was a sign of the coming
apocalypse, that his being elected was going to cause Bush to have to
take a nuclear shot at Iran, and all sorts of really bad shit was going
to happen. Frank was otherwise a very kind and gentle friend (and I miss
him very much - we debated on topics like this a lot and rarely if ever
saw eye to eye on politics or religion). His life experiences brought
him to a conclusion that differed from mine, and he knew (both in his
heart and in his head) that he had seen proof of God's existence.
Who are you or I to say he didn't? It's what gave him comfort, and if he
happened to be right, he's watching me have this discussion with you. If
not, then he's gone other than the memory of his friends and family who
loved him.
Now whether his faith meant more to him than his family is anybody's
guess. I know it meant a lot to him and that nothing would shake it.
And I'm certain that it gave him comfort just before he died.
>>> Watched some clips today of various comics, and the strongly religious
>>> one was precisely like that. His absolute 100% position was, "I
>>> believe, I know I am right, so therefor 'everything' I say about
>>> non-believers or sinner **has to be funny**.
>>
>> Consider: Perhaps he was being satirical.
>
> Ok.. I rewatched it and.. He isn't as blindingly boring as Ben Stein,
> and he "is" trying to be, vaguely, satirical.
It seems that your interpretation and his may differ on this point. I
don't know the comedian, but I know that people who are in comedy are
there first and foremost to be funny. Some people are better at it than
others, and apparently to your tastes, this guy wasn't very good.
> Mostly.. He starts off
> with "atheists believe in nothing, and need a lot of faith for that",
Now that *is* funny. ;-)
> I mean... I don't even know where to start counting the flat out "wrong"
> things.
You don't, it's comedy, for entertainment purposes. You can't take every
damned thing people say seriously. Or rather, if you do, you're going to
be in for a pretty miserable time on this planet.
> If this guy was on a forum, instead of a stage, no one would be
> laughing.
Then it's a damned good thing he was on a stage. My point is, you can
take many things that people say in jest and not change one word but
change the venue and as such change the entire meaning. Context is
important.
>> One of the things that alternate ideas do is force us to reexamine what
>> we believe in. The debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution, for
>> example - what that has done is galvanized a large part of the
>> scientific community that deals with evolutionary science, and it seems
>> that we are discovering more things that demonstrate evolution in
>> practical terms. If we didn't have Creationists challenging the very
>> idea of Evolution, it's likely we wouldn't have had the advances.
>
> Bullocks. We where making progress even without them.
Well, I disagree, and it's quite easy to prove that if you put a bunch of
people in a room together who disagree about nothing, they don't make
progress. I've seen it many times at work in meetings, because I've been
the one who has not agreed. When someone who has a different perspective
introduces a new idea, sometimes that gets a "gee, I never thought about
that". That idea might come in later, sure, but the point is that it
comes in later, and that's a slowness in progress.
It's bullocks to think that a bunch of people who think the same way are
going to push themselves as hard as a bunch of people who are having
their ideas challenged, even if the challenges are coming from idiots.
>> The lack of a challenge
>> often leads to complacency and lazy thinking. But having to structure
>> a debate, even against something that you and I think is patently
>> ridiculous, helps science.
>>
> No, it just wastes time and money. The only thing that ID has done is
> emphasize, at least to scientists, that science education in the US
> isn't "bad", so much as, "terrifyingly bad",
And it's a bad thing to highlight this reality?
Posit: The ID crowd says nothing or doesn't exist. Science education
continues as it's going. Where's the improvement again? If it's bad and
something doesn't come along to change the course, then it stays the same
(kinda an application of Newtonian physics to the idea of following an
educational path, I guess: A bad system in motion will tend to stay in
motion until some force changes it.)
> fracking
Side note: As a BSG fan myself, it's "frakking". No "c", double 'k'. ;-)
>> So what's the alternative? And to add a constraint, an alternative
>> that doesn't limit the rights of those who push a particular point of
>> view?
>>
> All you can do is point out why the conspiracy theorists are wrong,
Yep. So do that.
> and
> sometimes that "means" saying things that some of their supporters, like
> it or not, are going to see as "attacks".
It helps if you don't start your counterargument with "well, they're all
a bunch of frakkin' idiots". First, as I've said a few times, it puts
them on the defensive and allows them to paint themselves as victims,
which doesn't help you. Second, it doesn't exactly inspire some self-
reflection on their part.
>>> or.. if you are lucky, someone wondering, "Could I be wrong." Another
>>> "trend" in recent years seems to be the insane, and often
>>> ***specifically worded*** this way, idea that, "One should have a
>>> right to not be offended." Bullshit!
>>
>> I agree with this. However that also means that you and I don't have a
>> right to be offended by religion. That's a two-way street.
>>
> Uh.. No, thought I was clear. We have no right to "not be offended", and
> by extension, we can be offended by anything we want too.
D'oh, I'm not sure what I was thinking there - but reading that over
again, no, it doesn't make sense. But you bring up another point, which
is that it's your choice to be offended. It's not necessary to be.
> Its like free
> speech. Just because I have to let someone talk doesn't mean I have to
> "like" them talking, or do nothing at all to try to stop people
> listening too it.
There's a fine line between convincing people to stop listening and
suppressing the speech you don't like, though.
> If I did, then I wouldn't be exercising "my" rights.
> Sure its a "two way street".
Agree.
> That is why respect has to be earned, not
> handed to every half wit that shows up with some sort of opinion.
Respect is a different matter. Just because we don't respect someone
doesn't mean they don't have the right to express an opinion, no matter
how stupid it is. The Klan has a constitutionally protected right to
spew their offensive hate speech as much as they want. It's not a
problem until they (or someone else) acts on it in a way that violates
the law.
> They
> can hold it all they want. They want me to respect it... well, accepting
> that they hold it isn't the "same" as respecting it.
Agreed. They can't make you believe something you don't.
> Yet, truth be told,
> most of the people we have been talking about a) assume respect must
> come automatically to "their" ideas, especially if religious, and this
> is practically written in the same law that ironically is "supposed" to
> limit its influence of the people that are not *supposed* to be giving
> it undue respect, and b) no one else's deserves the same treatment.
Well, then they're wrong. But just because they have bad or false
expectations about how people should react to their ideas doesn't mean
their ideas should be suppressed, again, no matter how idiotic they are.
Put another way: Respect for ideas is not something that's
constitutionally protected. If some people think it is, then they are
wrong.
>> It's about presentation, Patrick. If your goal is to persuade someone
>> that they're being what you consider an "irrational fool", using
>> inflammatory language to get the point across will cause them to raise
>> their shields (that's human nature) and to fight back.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Framing. As in, framing the argument to the point where you
> find yourself painted in to a corner, because you where unwilling to be
> a bit less than "nice.
It's not just a question of being unwilling to be a little bit less than
nice, but also about wanting to be taken seriously. I find myself
repeating myself, but those who want to be taken seriously have to act in
a way that inspires people to take them seriously. Those who don't tend
to be marginalized, and that doesn't help your cause.
> But, seriously, its beside the point. I am not so
> stupid I don't know to adjust my approach when I am dealing with someone
> that "is" able to change opinion, and not addressing the "audience"
> through ridicule of the object my comments are directed at. The argument
> amount to, "Well, someone might be listening, who would change their
> mind if you where nicer."
Maybe not nicer, but having a better word choice. Instead of "they're
all a bunch of idiots" (a personal attack), "the idea is ridiculous
because..." (ie, refuting the idea rather than the person/people). Do
you see the difference?
> Look, I guess my point is that the same tactic that works on one person
> doesn't work on another,
Yes - we're all individuals. But that doesn't mean that you can't take a
stance that generally focuses more on the ideas and in refuting the ideas
rather than attacking the people (see above).
>> Those watching are likely to see someone "on the attack", and that
>> gives the "recipient" of the ridicule the ability to draw sympathy from
>> those on the sidelines. If you want to affect those watching from the
>> sidelines, you have to not make the target of your discussion into a
>> victim. What's more, if the "attack" is seen to be unprovoked, you're
>> more than likely going to drive those on the sidelines (and on the
>> fence) to *help* the "victim".
>>
> They claim "victim" regardless of how nice you are.
Some will, yes. But the probability is higher if you make the attack
personal (ie, "they're all idiots") rather than arguing the ideas. Then
when they say "you're attacking me", you can say "no, I'm not, I'm
debating the idea. You don't agree with me, and that's fine - your
agreement isn't required for me to make my point, which is that <idea> is
wrong for these reasons....".
> Are we even talking about the same thing? I am not talking
> about just showing up an calling someone names.
I think we're talking about the presentation of ideas in a way so as to
persuade, either the person the debate is with or those who are watching
from the sidelines.
> I am talking about
> showing why they "deserve" some of the names.
Then you're not debating the ideas, you ARE attacking them - which
doesn't help in the debate about the ideas.
> If you can't even be mild and "nice" and avoid being called a monster...
Just because someone calls you names doesn't mean you have to reply in
kind. Take the high ground and draw the debate back to being about ideas
rather than people.
If anything, when they decide to call you a monster, you get to play the
victim card for a change.... ;-) (Yes, I know you're unlikely to, but
those on the sidelines might be persuaded by the fact that those you are
debating have turned you into a victim by starting to call names).
>> At some point, it's not a question of "unwillingness", but a question
>> of "is it even worth my time?". If you or I spent all of our time
>> trying to convince people all the things we think are ridiculous are
>> ridiculous, we'd have scarce time to ourselves.
>>
> Sigh.. Again, we tried that for "decades".
Let me ask you a question.....What do you want out of your life?
> You can't ignore or lose every "public" battle, other than the ones in
> court, and expect to win the fracking war on the idea.
No, but you can't fight every battle, either. You have to pick your
battles, and pick ones that you can win. Then you have to apply a
strategy that allows you to win. Sometimes that might mean taking a "win
at all costs" stance, and sometimes it doesn't.
>> suppose) owned by the church. What do you suppose the tax advantages
>> are for having an insurance company that's owned by a religious
>> organization?
>>
> No kidding..
So that's something that needs to be addressed in the tax code. Now
there are two ways to go about this. The first is to go down to the Salt
Lake City Temple with 100 of your closest friends and picket, disrupt
people's weddings, and other such things.
The other is to get those 100 friends together and start lobbying the
people who actually make the laws to change them. We have groups like
the NRA who do that and get their way. The problem is that those of us
who think that these kinds of tax breaks are bullshit aren't as organized
as the people who got the exceptions into the tax code. Jumping up and
down and being disruptive won't fix it, because the core problem with the
people who want it to change is they're not organized enough to effect a
change like that.
That's why Prop 8 in CA went the way it did. Those who were against it
weren't organized enough, and the LDS Church (amongst others, but they
were one of the largest organizations that put money into the advertising
coffers) was organized enough to mobilize its membership to donate to the
"Vote Yes on 8" groups.
>>> Right.. Because no one can come along and just declare, by fiat that
>>> Stem cells are useless, or, like in India, we should be using Vedic
>>> math and science, including alchemy, instead of "western" ideas...
>>
>> There are short periods of idiocy in policy, again, that's one of the
>> things that happens in a free society.
>>
> Would be a nice argument if not for the "minor" flaw that "some" such
> idiocies lead to increasingly "less" free societies.
And those things can be corrected by using the idea of strength in
numbers. We saw the start of the reversal of several Bush Jr. policies
when Obama was elected. Not as many as I'd have liked, but it's a start.
Personally, I agree with Bill Maher on this: Obama needs a little of
Bush's swagger and certainty. At least he's got *good* ideas. Bush had
certainty and bad ideas. That's a bad combination.
> If we where talking about anything to extreme, you would have a point.
> We are talking about people claiming a threat to a way of life that
> ***isn't even*** the one they claim they based it on in the first place,
That's not really my point. My point is to show that the "slippery
slope" logic is used on both sides of a debate. I think that's my point,
anyways. These messages are getting to be a bit too long to manage. ;-)
> I am sure that, should enough creationists ever get into power and start
> banning things in science they don't like, it won't be the end of the
> world,
It's fortunate that should that happen we have the bill of rights to back
up our right to dissent, and we have laws in place that prevent us from
having a dictator for too long. What's needed is organization of those
who agree that these are bad ideas - I've said it before in this message,
but that's the way to effect change - by recognizing the strength in
numbers.
> but.. what country is going to accept the millions of refugees
> that leave in disgust over it, or in the years that follow, as they
> institute more and more religious laws, take away more freedoms, and
> make the country more an more like.. well, Afghanistan or Iran? lol
Leaving is kinda the easy way out. Better to stay and work to improve
things. (This is being said by someone who actually does plan to leave
the US at some point and resettle in Europe - but not for political
reasons, just because that's where the larger group of my friends are)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:16:18 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:39:47 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Jim Henderson wrote:
>>>> Sometimes it's not a question of supporting (directly or indirectly)
>>>> the bad part, but supporting the good part.
>>> See, I don't think that is at all relevant.
>>
>> I could see why you think that, but I disagree. Even bad people can do
>> good things, and given a choice between supporting a program that feeds
>> starving people that is sponsored by someone who is bad and having
>> those people starve to death, I'd rather they got fed. But before
>> supporting a program run by "the bad guys", I'd first look for
>> alternatives that didn't have that baggage.
>>
> All I can say to this is.. If it was the **only** group doing it, I
> might provisionally agree with you. Yet, it usually isn't, and if
> anything, its the ones with an alternate agenda that promote themselves
> so much its not always "obvious" that an alternative even exists.
Sure, that happens. So education is the solution - I wasn't aware of the
example you provided, but now you've given me something to look into.
> Its like the old days with the church, in Europe. Take in the equivalent
> of millions, if not billions, build a lot of temples, but.. when
> feeding, clothing or "helping" the poor or hungry, buy the cheapest
> cloth, the poorest food, etc. Feed them what the clergy wouldn't touch,
> and the not "quite" so poor wouldn't feed their pigs.
Well, Europe grew out of it. I suspect we will, too. It may not happen
in our lifetimes, but change like that sometimes takes generations to
happen. Changing the thinking of extremely large groups of people isn't
a trivial task.
> We can thank "secular" systems for making it so that the modern
> equivalent to this is almost a feast by those days standards, but it
> doesn't change the actual "intent", or "thinking" of those in charge,
> one bit. Just makes it harder to call them on it.
Well, nobody said it would be easy.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
