| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
the atheism I've seen most common in 21st century America. And THAT is a religion. One of its tenets is claiming that science is the ultimate authority. Though, it takes on faith the concepts of parsimony and repetition of results. One of its rituals is getting on internet message boards and claiming that religion is toxic.
Sure. It's a religion opposed by the followers of Anti-atheist Strawmannism, an equally publicly obnoxious cult with tenets such as (a) science is a giant conspiracy of lies; (b) Hitler's blend of Catholocism, wingbat neopaganism, and personality cult is somehow representative of atheism; and (c) atheists are therefore "militant" and must be opposed, lest they take away all our freedom.
If you're contrasting atheism with theism, then I agree. Atheism is not a religion and neither is theism. They are general classifications of belief systems. Atheism includes things like many forms of Taoism, many forms of Buddhism, even many forms of Shamanism. However, when people refer to 'atheism' they are commonly (at least in my experience) talking about a specific form of atheism - the atheism I've seen most common in 21st century America. And THAT is a religion.
One of its tenets is claiming that science is the ultimate authority. Though, it takes on faith the concepts of parsimony and repetition of results. One of its rituals is getting on internet message boards and claiming that religion is toxic.
Alright, well, I'm done trying to debate this with you because you can't be swayed from your entrenched pro-religious ideology. We already discussed using vernacular forms of terms like "ritual" so when you then use ONLY a nonacademic use of that term I know you are being wholly disingenuous in your entire argument.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone actually been successfully swayed from their entrenched positions in any of these OTD threads?
<crickets>
Can Atheists proselytize?
Can Atheists proselytize?
Sure. Just not about their religion. Proselytism doesn't have to be conversion about religious doctrine, just opinion. In this way, anyone who comes to your door asking you to sign a petition to make the kingfisher the state bird, or whatever, is proselytizing.
Has anyone actually been successfully swayed from their entrenched positions in any of these OTD threads?
<crickets>
Yes. A few actually. They didn't change my overall opinion in any tectonic way, but the opposing arguer made me less entrenched.
** spoiler omitted **
I think there can be solutions, but it's not an easy fix. Bullying is a deeply embedded part of schooling. Kids are neither innocent nor demons. They don't have the same foresight we do as to the consequences of their actions upon others. I don't think every bully is a psychopath, though of course it stands to reason some of them have serious mental issues. A segment of every other population does, after all.
We probably can't eliminate bullying any more than we can eliminate murder or rape (though some countries are down to very few murders per year, so some hope here) but we could work to undermine the cultural systems that reinforce it. Most bystanders react with indifference or support for the bully. I don't know quite how to swing that around the other way, but if it could be done I expect there would be a lot less bullying.
That probably requires some heavy shifts in how we recruit and train teachers. I've been through that program and we spent a lot of time on dealing with disruptive students (most of that stuff didn't work), students with special health issues, how to deal with a kid having a seizure, a guy with a gun in the school. All important things to talk about, but there wasn't a word to be said about bullying despite it being a practical certainty that at least one kid in the room is suffering from it at any given time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has anyone actually been successfully swayed from their entrenched positions in any of these OTD threads?
<crickets>
I don't recall if it's happened here specifically, but I've been persuaded to reverse myself on entrenched positions due to internet discussion.
1. You're not seriously asserting that the statement 'science is not the ultimate authority' is equivalent to the statement 'science is a pack of lies'.
2. And I have no idea why you brought Hitler into the thread unless you felt that it was time for a Godwin.
1. It's the exact (reverse) corresponding strawman position to "ultimate."
2. Tell it to all the "militant" anti-atheists who constantly bring it up, like Ben Stein and the Pope, and their zillions of followers.See how this works? As long as you lump people into a bloc and make exaggerated caricatures of their positions, it's fair game to do the same with you and yours. If you dislike it, it's easy enough for all of us (you included) to stop doing it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're contrasting atheism with theism, then I agree. Atheism is not a religion and neither is theism. They are general classifications of belief systems. Atheism includes things like many forms of Taoism, many forms of Buddhism, even many forms of Shamanism. However, when people refer to 'atheism' they are commonly (at least in my experience) talking about a specific form of atheism - the atheism I've seen most common in 21st century America. And THAT is a religion.
One of its tenets is claiming that science is the ultimate authority. Though, it takes on faith the concepts of parsimony and repetition of results. One of its rituals is getting on internet message boards and claiming that religion is toxic.
Here's something that bothers me when people attack science. You're attacking the truth. I don't mean you're attacking things that are true, but rather a very well developed method of finding the truth. Not everything that science says is true, but the glorious thing about that, is that you can use science to prove when it's wrong. In fact, this is the standard amongst scientists. If you want to make a claim you have to write down your methods and findings for others to analyze and reproduce.
The reason something like evolution is still considered a "theory" is that it's results cannot be reproduced even within a period as long as all of written human history. But the evidence that is used to support it is very strong and can be analyzed and findings reproduced. Where findings and conclusions produce different results you have a lot of debate and controversy.
Also, I find it ridiculous to put down science while using a computer. The very act contradicts itself and demonstrates to me how little the person would seem to understand about science and how it impacts the world around them.
Science is about proof. If you are accepting something without evidence, than it isn't science and cannot be considered science. There are people who believe in science without knowing how it works, but that doesn't change the nature of science.
Empirically, I still want to believe that the moon is made of swiss cheese.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I simply said that it is not the ultimate authority. There are all kinds of things that are useful, but have nothing to do with science.
But don't kid yourself. Science is based on a couple of things that are taken on faith - repetition of experiments, empiricism, and parsimony being some of them.
You left the biggest element of good science. Skepticism. Skepticism is the opposite of faith.
Also, every debate you participate in eventually becomes about twisting definitions to mean something other than their commonly accepted meaning. You're trying to force words to fit your ideas.
You're trying to force words to fit your ideas.
Which is the height of bad science.
Really? So, when the Protestant reformation had several people become skeptical of the existing religion, they were practicing science?
1 component =/= the whole thing, but, yeah, they were at least heading in that direction.
Really? So, when the Protestant reformation had several people become skeptical of the existing religion, they were practicing science?
You left the biggest element of good science. Skepticism. Skepticism is the opposite of faith.
First off, Martin Luther was not a skeptic.
Second, your statement is illogical.
I said "all mackerel are fish."
You said "therefore all fish are mackerel."
First off, Martin Luther was not a skeptic.
To elucidate, Martin Luther was skeptical of a specific claim, but skepticism was not the primary method by which he arrived at conclusions for his beliefs. In fact, faith was the primary method by which he arrived at most conclusions, which is why faith is the primary pillar of Protestantism. Faith is the opposite of skepticism.
** spoiler omitted **
Thank You.
In the end bullies use fear more than any other single force to do what it is they do. Kids ignore it or join in because they don't want to be the next target, something I can't honestly hold against them, which is why the default defenders should be adults. The fact that bullying wasn't even addressed in your training is rather sigh inducing to me. It means the teachers will just have to make it up as they go along, presuming of course they do anything at all...
I have to admit that sometimes kids engage in bullying as a way to displace anger. I know I did in junior high and high school. I had an a!@&~@+ of a teacher who made my life absolutely miserable and I displaced that onto a student who I thought always looked up to him.
I got into contact with that student a couple of years ago and apologized to her. I had carried guilt around for a couple of decades about how I treated her. The funny thing is, she didn't look up to that a@!*&%+ teacher back in school. She had to deal with his crap (and the crap of his family) as well. Since then, she and I have become good friends.
That's good to hear. Ironic that she didn't like him as well, if you had realized that then you could prolly have been friends instead of having a contentious relationship. At least it all worked out, better late than never.
You have to understand, this guy was a complete a#@#&@*. I went to a private school whose head administrator was this guy - he was the son of the cult leader of the cult I grew up in. Last year, a Facebook page was started for the former students that survived this mess. About a hundred former students joined and every one of them had some horror story to tell about this guy and his family.
Every single gay former student that is out of the closet has spent some time in a mental health clinic. It just so happens that this girl is a lesbian and I'm gay - though neither of us meet the stereotype.
Oh, wow, when you were talking about having a dickish teacher I was imagining something a little more mundane. What was happening there and why were the gay students traumatized? Also when you say neither of you meet the stereotype what stereotype are you referring to?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was not swayed into atheism by atheists. I was swayed by Christians.
I read somewhere that the people most statistically likely to abandon religion for atheism are seminary students*. Makes you wonder!
I read somewhere that the people most statistically likely to abandon religion for atheism are seminary students*. Makes you wonder!
Usually those out of Catholic Universities. If not necessarily a complete switch to atheism, but some become quite liberal in their understanding that it almost takes an existential Zen-like approach. Which would be too radical for the conservative mainstream.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I read somewhere that the people most statistically likely to abandon religion for atheism are seminary students*. Makes you wonder!
Alot of that prolly has to do with the fact that it's really easy to believe that the bible has all the answers when you've never read it but once you crack the darned thing open and take a gander all that strong certainty you feel about how you understand what's happening in the world slowly bleeds away into a cloud of confusion. Some recover, some don't.
As far as magicians go: spend your life crafting clever illusions designed to trick the senses and you become much more aware that getting completely fooled by something is far easier than most people imagine.
To me the two states of belief that always seemed the most rational were a friendly agnosticism or an apathetic atheism. Perhaps I would be one of those two if they didn't just seem to get sh*t on from all directions.
Instead I am an evangelical Christian. Put your hands up for Jesus! Yeah!
** spoiler omitted **** spoiler omitted **
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Skepticism is not the primary method anyone comes to any belief other than the negative (eg "my clapping my hands does not make the sun rise in the morning). You can't reach a positive claim (eg. electrons carry electrical charge) through skepticism.To elucidate, Martin Luther was skeptical of a specific claim, but skepticism was not the primary method by which he arrived at conclusions for his beliefs. In fact, faith was the primary method by which he arrived at most conclusions, which is why faith is the primary pillar of Protestantism. Faith is the opposite of skepticism.
First off, Martin Luther was not a skeptic.
You keep using the word belief. I don't believe in science. I know science.
I don't believe in 2+2=4. I know 2+2=4.
I don't believe in the process of how your tooth creates enamel every day and how that growth gets partitioned off each day, so the number of partitions can give us a clue as to how old you are. I know that's how a tooth works.
I don't believe that light travels at 299,792.458 m / s. I know that light travels at 299,792.458 m / s.
I don't believe Leafar the Lost is going to kick your ass, I know that Leafar the Lost is going to kick your ass!
I also agree that atheists tend to get sh!t on from all sides. This really pissed me off.
That was my experience in the Army. My squad leader announced to us, "Legally, I am not permitted to require you to attend Chapel. Now hear me well: Each and every one of you WILL attend Chapel!"
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And like all useful things, it should only be shared with people that want you to share it with them.There I disagree with you. A person who has never seen a hammer before isn't going to know if they want one until you show it to them.
Sadly, most people have a skewed idea of what religion is because all they ever hear about it is the crack pipe stuff the Religious Reich spews.
Most people have a skewed view of religion because if you aren't indoctrinated into a specific religion from a very young age, you will wonder why people believe in the magic underwear, or the literal transubstantiation, or the burkas, etc...
At some point, religious leaders convinced people god wanted them to cut off part of their child's penis.
And they did that. And they do that. Some let strange men suck the blood off of the tip using a mouth full of wine. One child recently died of herpes as a result.
Not in the third world. Not in some back water. In New York.
This is a decree from god in the religion that is the basis for the big three.
You don't need to tell me why our view is "skewed". Feel free to explain why a book that says bacon and lobster are evil form the basis of your morality.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It wasn't that long ago that somebody would have claimed that they didn't believe that stomach ulcers weren't caused by a virus, they knew that stomach ulcers weren't caused by a virus.Skepticism is not the primary method anyone comes to any belief other than the negative (eg "my clapping my hands does not make the sun rise in the morning). You can't reach a positive claim (eg. electrons carry electrical charge) through skepticism.To elucidate, Martin Luther was skeptical of a specific claim, but skepticism was not the primary method by which he arrived at conclusions for his beliefs. In fact, faith was the primary method by which he arrived at most conclusions, which is why faith is the primary pillar of Protestantism. Faith is the opposite of skepticism.
First off, Martin Luther was not a skeptic.You keep using the word belief. I don't believe in science. I know science.
I don't believe in 2+2=4. I know 2+2=4.
I don't believe in the process of how your tooth creates enamel every day and how that growth gets partitioned off each day, so the number of partitions can give us a clue as to how old you are. I know that's how a tooth works.
I don't believe that light travels at 299,792.458 m / s. I know that light travels at 299,792.458 m / s.
And then we performed tests and peer reviewed the results.
To quote Penn Jillette "If every trace of any single religion were wiped out and nothing were passed on, it would never be created exactly that way again. There might be some other nonsense in its place, but not that exact nonsense. If all of science were wiped out, it would still be true and someone would find a way to figure it all out again."
