Should We Respect Religion?

[lightgigantic]

Perhaps you're the one with the ego, that prevents you from accepting that your beliefs are a joke?

Don't you see?

I could just turn around and say the same thing about you and turn the whole thing into a shit slinging contest

("Gentlemen start your ad hom engines ...."

 

[lightgigantic]

you certainly have a thing about ego. he's right you do have a chip on your shoulder.

this is how people debate, take a look at any political debate program, they always have an nautral adjudicator to keep the peace.

unfortunately religion seems to be the most irrational standpoint, so is left open to a little more ridicule.

the respect is there, it just get overshadowed by the rationale, which to the religious, always seem to be a direct dig at them personally, whereas it's the belief thats at fault.

This is an example of disrespect

"Before we begin to discuss the premises for your understanding let me first of all establish that the very point of view you have enables be to transgress the normal considerations for civil discussion"

This is not looking for discussion

This is looking for a fight

This is ego speaking and not logic

 

[lightgigantic]

Skinwalker

LightG. has said that ridicule informs the opposing side of an argument that you find them a "joke" and a "deluded moron." Clearly, the "moron" part is inferred from the ridicule and not necessarily said implicitly. My response to this is simply to ask, "so?" Some positions are a joke and, if my opinion of them allows you to infer that I find you a moron, so be it.

what makes this disrespect is that the conclusion is arrived at before discussion - it would be a different matter if it was arrived at after the discussion - therefore such attempts at "discussion" are not actually discussion but thinly veiled (or in many cases totally unveiled) attempts to repeatedly ad hom the opponent

Understanding how variety manifests is an essential tool in analysing conflicts and coping with the confusion that is bound to arise. Ross and Ward of Stanford University give a detailed outline of such a concept (pp. 110–11). They coin the phrase ‘naive realism’, and describe the concept as follows:

--That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.

--That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.

--That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:

1) The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);

2) The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or

3)The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.

I prefer the term ‘subjective realism’ to the more pejorative ‘naive realism’; for me, ‘naive’ tends to make this syndrome sound undesirable. Rather, thinking in these ways is natural—it is clear that this influence is frequently at work in most people’s lives—the only undesirable part is when we don’t recognise it in others or ourselves.

 

[SkinWalker]

Skinwalker



what makes this disrespect is that the conclusion is arrived at before discussion - it would be a different matter if it was arrived at after the discussion - therefore such attempts at "discussion" are not actually discussion but thinly veiled (or in many cases totally unveiled) attempts to repeatedly ad hom the opponent

Understanding how variety manifests is an essential tool in analysing conflicts and coping with the confusion that is bound to arise. Ross and Ward of Stanford University give a detailed outline of such a concept (pp. 110–11). They coin the phrase ‘naive realism’, and describe the concept as follows:

--That I see entities and events as they are in objective reality, and that my social attitudes, beliefs, preferences, priorities, and the like follow from a relatively dispassionate, unbiased and essentially ‘unmediated’ apprehension of the information or evidence at hand.

--That other rational social perceivers generally will share my reactions, behaviour and opinions—provided they have had access to the same information that gave rise to my views, and provided that they too have processed that information in a reasonably thoughtful, and open-minded fashion.

--That the failure of a given individual or group to share my views arises from one of three possible sources:

1) The individual or group in question may have been exposed to a different sample of information than I was (in which case, provided that the other party is reasonable and open-minded, the sharing or pooling of information should lead us to reach an agreement);

2) The individual or group in question may be lazy, irrational, or otherwise unable or unwilling to proceed in a normative fashion from objective evidence to reasonable conclusions; or

3)The individual or group in question may be biased (either in interpreting the evidence or in proceeding from evidence to conclusions) by ideology, self-interest, or some other distorting personal influence.

I prefer the term ‘subjective realism’ to the more pejorative ‘naive realism’; for me, ‘naive’ tends to make this syndrome sound undesirable. Rather, thinking in these ways is natural—it is clear that this influence is frequently at work in most people’s lives—the only undesirable part is when we don’t recognise it in others or ourselves.

LightG.,

This has already been typed by someone else somewhere else. The words I've quoted in red, as well as the text you put in quotes are directly plagiarized from the link.

You've given the impression in this post that these are your words and they most certainly are not. It's enough to make one wonder what else you've typed in all your posts that is just someone else's postmodernist, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. Smooth move sport. But plagiarism is against forum rules.

 

[lightgigantic]

LightG.,

This has already been typed by someone else somewhere else. The words I've quoted in red, as well as the text you put in quotes are directly plagiarized from the link.

You've given the impression in this post that these are your words and they most certainly are not. It's enough to make one wonder what else you've typed in all your posts that is just someone else's postmodernist, pseudo-intellectual mumbo-jumbo. Smooth move sport. But plagiarism is against forum rules.

sorry it was a mistake on my behalf - the excerpt's pasted on file for handy access and the header and footer slipped out.

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

[Oniw17]

Don't you see?

I could just turn around and say the same thing about you and turn the whole thing into a shit slinging contest

("Gentlemen start your ad hom engines ...."

You could...but I'm not the one who made the cocky notion that others' criticism of my beliefs was a result of their ego, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with my beliefs.

 

[lightgigantic]

Oniw17

You could...but I'm not the one who made the cocky notion that others' criticism of my beliefs was a result of their ego, and couldn't possibly have anything to do with my beliefs.

My point was that one cocky egotistical comment tends to warrant a similar reply. There is no better way to get the ball rolling like this in a discussion than to follow up in the mood of statements such as indicated in bold .....

Perhaps you're the one with the ego, that prevents you from accepting that your beliefs are a joke?

In otherwords this is not a move towards discussion - this is a move towards ego ..... this is not looking for discourse - this is looking for a fight

 

[audible]

what makes this disrespect is that the conclusion is arrived at before discussion - it would be a different matter if it was arrived at after the discussion

if it was the very first time, I for instant had ever had a discussion with a religious person, then it would be disrespectful because I would be judging a book by it's cover, however having discussed many a time with religious people I know what to expect, because I've already read the book, so it is not disrespect of the person but the beliefs they hold.

 

[lightgigantic]

if it was the very first time, I for instant had ever had a discussion with a religious person, then it would be disrespectful because I would be judging a book by it's cover, however having discussed many a time with religious people I know what to expect, because I've already read the book, so it is not disrespect of the person but the beliefs they hold.

So if I read a book on electrons(never mind if I don't understand it) then I am entitled to enter into discussions with physicists with the attitude "Before we begin let me declare that your ideas are a hallucination due to your beliefs that are a joke?"

In otherwords even if one is laying claims to having a background of knowledge in some field, they never take a stance like you are advocating, unless of course they are looking for a fight instead of a discussion.

 

[audible]

LG cant you see how flawed your arguement is, literally everybody else is confrontational in religious debate or any debate for that matter, but not you.
this is what your saying,you are mister perfect, please get off your high horse, that is the nature of debate, it has nothing to do with ego, it all to do with what is correct, for the debater to the debatee, or vice verser, you argue with the point not the person.

and as for you electron analogy well give me a break, I think you will find that all atheist have had one holy book or another shoved down there throats, from an early age, I also think you will find, it is because of them understanding it that much better, that they no longer follow it.
and nobody go'es into a debate without having a knowledge of the subject, it would be extremely irrational to do that.

 

[lightgigantic]

audible

LG cant you see how flawed your arguement is, literally everybody else is confrontational in religious debate or any debate for that matter, but not you.

what i am saying is that there is a tendency here to never arrive on the platform of debate, because debate does not flourish in an environment of ad homs - and th ebest way to catalyze an exchange of ad homs is to initiate discussion form the point of "Before we begin let me tell you that your ideas are a joke and the only reason you can entertain them is because you are deluded"

this is what your saying,you are mister perfect, please get off your high horse, that is the nature of debate, it has nothing to do with ego, it all to do with what is correct, for the debater to the debatee, or vice verser, you argue with the point not the person.

this is exactly what you transgress - actually its what you feel you are vindicated to transgress by dint of your superior perspective - even though I may be strongly convinced of my views I have never launched into an initial barage of ad homs (unless I thought someone was sock puppetting me)

and as for you electron analogy well give me a break, I think you will find that all atheist have had one holy book or another shoved down there throats, from an early age,

exactly - your debate happens from the platform of emmotion as opposed to logic (which is just a hair breadth from teh abode of ad homsville)

I also think you will find, it is because of them understanding it that much better, that they no longer follow it.

Even if that was the case, is it still a good reason to ad hom?

and nobody go'es into a debate without having a knowledge of the subject, it would be extremely irrational to do that.

try reading this (its just a few posts down at number 83)

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1189716&postcount=83

 

[Oniw17]

My point was that one cocky egotistical comment tends to warrant a similar reply.

So why would you make such egotistical claims and expect nobody to challenge them, or reply in an equally egotistical way?

There is no better way to get the ball rolling like this in a discussion than to follow up in the mood of statements such as indicated in bold .....
Perhaps you're the one with the ego, that prevents you from accepting that your beliefs are a joke?

Do you think it's everyone else's problem that they keep telling you that your beliefs are a joke? Maybe you shoould look at the writing on the wall?

In otherwords this is not a move towards discussion - this is a move towards ego ..... this is not looking for discourse - this is looking for a fight

Can I call you a hypocrite?

 

[lightgigantic]

Oni

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
My point was that one cocky egotistical comment tends to warrant a similar reply. ”

So why would you make such egotistical claims and expect nobody to challenge them, or reply in an equally egotistical way?

Its not clear how a discussion on theology is clearly egotisitical

“ There is no better way to get the ball rolling like this in a discussion than to follow up in the mood of statements such as indicated in bold .....
Perhaps you're the one with the ego, that prevents you from accepting that your beliefs are a joke? ”

Do you think it's everyone else's problem that they keep telling you that your beliefs are a joke? Maybe you shoould look at the writing on the wall?

I don't have a problem with it - I have a problem when people try to pass off such obvious ad homs as philosophical discussion however ....

“ In otherwords this is not a move towards discussion - this is a move towards ego ..... this is not looking for discourse - this is looking for a fight ”

Can I call you a hypocrite?

Its a question of reciprocation - one ad hom leads to another - in other words if you want an unintelligent conversation that never really hovers any great distance above the platform of ad homs, go for it

 

[(Q)]

I don't have a problem with it - I have a problem when people try to pass off such obvious ad homs as philosophical discussion however ....



Its a question of reciprocation - one ad hom leads to another - in other words if you want an unintelligent conversation that never really hovers any great distance above the platform of ad homs, go for it

That would beg the question, why come to a science forum to discuss religion? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at a religious site full of theists?

 

[lightgigantic]

That would beg the question, why come to a science forum to discuss religion? Wouldn't you feel more comfortable at a religious site full of theists?

No -

there are several atheists who's responses I find enlivening because they actually have the abilityt to present their ideas in a philosophical format distinct from their emmotional underpinnings- they practically never ad hom - unfortunately they are not in the majority (no prizes for guessing which side of the line you stand on)

 

[spamandham]

Should we moderate free speech with respect for religious opinion and belief?

No. There are no beliefs that should get a free pass from critical examination, IMHO.

Religious people tend to show deference to faith in public, simply as a tit for tat understanding they have with other religions to do the same for them. They agree to honor faith itself, even though they will not agree on the details of that faith.

But why should people who don't respect faith abide by this detente? I find the very concept of faith disgusting, perhaps the worst idea to have ever infected the human mind. It needs to be mercilessly destroyed just as if it were a biological parasite.

But I agree that in the process of attacking beliefs, care must be taken to attack the belief, and not the people who hold it. Frequently, those who hold such beliefs will see an attack on their cherished beliefs as an attack on them personally. That's their problem.

 

[audible]

what i am saying is that there is a tendency here to never arrive on the platform of debate, because debate does not flourish in an environment of ad homs - and the best way to catalyze an exchange of ad homs is to initiate discussion from the point of "Before we begin let me tell you that your ideas are a joke and the only reason you can entertain them is because you are deluded"

but where are the ad homs, a debate is usually started, by you (generalised you ) stating your view and then, I mine, it does not start with the frame of reference, you keep avocating, it would be pointless to debate a point otherwise. we have moderators to oversee such things dont happen, be it on forums or political govenments, we have a speaker of the house here who keeps order, however I am diversifying.
the point I'm trying to make is the nature of debate is raised voices and occasion ad homs, unfortunately.
we all go into a debate with a open mind, yes we may have a strong anti belief/view to the debatee, but we dont start out by ad hom'ing.
we wait and see what we get as a reply, and then decide how to respond, if the reply has no basis in logic or evidence, then we may respond rather more unkindly than if it was logical and evidencial.(generalised we)
ego is not really used in debate, because we are debating a point, a point has no ego.

 

[lightgigantic]

audible

but where are the ad homs, a debate is usually started, by you (generalised you ) stating your view and then, I mine,

the view "You are deluded and a joke of nature so therefore whatever you say is total clap trap" is not a view for debate - how can debate progress anywhere if at anytime during the debate one feels saying "but your beliefs are not true" does not transgress the ettiquette of debate (not to just single out atheists - I se even theists perform teh same stunt) - in other words its not like you are actually examining the opposing parties premise and establishing how their persepctive is misplaced - on eis simply driving home one's preconceived notions and reinforcing a stereotype in the name of so-called debate

it does not start with the frame of reference, you keep avocating, it would be pointless to debate a point otherwise. we have moderators to oversee such things dont happen,

In case you haven't noticed some of the biggest ad hommers are the mods, (not all of them but definitely 2 or 3 spring to mind) - at the very least, from all the ad homs that you have seen go down on this site, how many have been addressed by the mods?

be it on forums or political govenments, we have a speaker of the house here who keeps order, however I am diversifying.
the point I'm trying to make is the nature of debate is raised voices and occasion ad homs, unfortunately.
we all go into a debate with a open mind, yes we may have a strong anti belief/view to the debatee, but we dont start out by ad hom'ing.

If you verbalize the view - "because you advocate X there is no need for further discussion" how is that open?

we wait and see what we get as a reply, and then decide how to respond, if the reply has no basis in logic or evidence, then we may respond rather more unkindly than if it was logical and evidencial.(generalised we)
ego is not really used in debate, because we are debating a point, a point has no ego.

The why is there the common stance (maybe not verbalized by you, but generally common on this site) all theists are unintelligent, despite evidence of many erudite philosophers and innovative scientists to the contrary?

 

[Cris]

lg,

The why is there the common stance (maybe not verbalized by you, but generally common on this site) all theists are unintelligent, despite evidence of many erudite philosophers and innovative scientists to the contrary?

Not quite accurate since there are exceptions to almost every aspect of human life, but stats do indicate that the more intelligent and the better educated do tend towards non-belief.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Not quite accurate since there are exceptions to almost every aspect of human life, .

You're right - what you are determining as "intelligence" can be replicated anywhere given access to such "educational" facilities - to equate mundane intelligence with either atheism or theism is as pointless as trying to establish whether it is atheists or theists that have the monoply over brown hair.