Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Some imagine that skeptics are modern day Ebenezer Scrooge's, full of bitterness, pessimistic, and a misanthrope. That we refuse to see the beauty in the world around us.
That just isn't the case. We can be and often are fascinated by the wonder of the natural universe. The scientific explanation for things can be just as, if not more, beautiful than the magical explanations some promote.
One can be happy, while curious, and asking for supporting evidence to back up the claims we hear. Our asking for evidence is not seen as confrontational or threatening to like-minded skeptics who gladly share with us the evidence and reasoning that supports their claims. We recognize and value the skepticism in each other.
But if the religious can't label people who ask questions as mockers or scoffers and dismiss them out of hand, they'll actually have to think about the questions. That's not good.
I agree with the OP but, unfortunately, that approach rarely is modeled here. It's such a small forum that it only takes a few regular posters to influence the tone. I'm what you might consider like-minded with the skeptics yet, even to me, the 'science is the answer' group, more often than not, comes across not as like-minded but as single-minded, strident and snide. IMO, that kind of derisiveness is short-sighted - born of anger, fear, and ignorance (same as the religious wing-nuts) - and it will always fail to be persuasive.
I agree with the OP but, unfortunately, that approach rarely is modeled here. It's such a small forum that it only takes a few regular posters to influence the tone. I'm what you might consider like-minded with the skeptics yet, even to me, the 'science is the answer' group, more often than not, comes across not as like-minded but as single-minded, strident and snide. IMO, that kind of derisiveness is short-sighted - born of anger, fear, and ignorance (same as the religious wing-nuts) - and it will always fail to be persuasive.
I won't argue that that attitude fails to 'win friends or influence people' but totally disagree with the why of it and to see you claiming so makes this one of those pot/kettle situations
I won't argue that that attitude fails to 'win friends or influence people' but totally disagree with the why of it and to see you claiming so makes this one of those pot/kettle situations
This might be obvious but I don't see it as pot/kettle. My point is that both 'sides' are missing the mark - it's rare for extremism to be perceived as reasonable or rational.
Some theist posters here seem to raiade an almost unworldy affection which is certainly impressive, though I can't say the same for their exigesis.
Others certainly don't come across so well. They are so bitter, angry and fed up with the world, life and everything in it that I truly feel sorry for them.
I have to hold up my hand to 'cynical'. The fact is that to be not cynical is to be gullible about people, their motives and their veracity. That is not to say pessimistic or despairing. I am an optimist and I have FAITH in the ability of humanity to do better. I happen not to think that religious belief is the way to go on that. I know that Thom R will disagree.
Skepticism is at the root of rationality, and is a major source of creativity. Cynicism is skepticism without any positive/creative ideas of its own. Cynicism sees something wrong, and just assumes it can't be fixed.
Some theists are cynics about science, and some scientists are cynics about theism.
Last edited by Gaylenwoof; 11-02-2010 at 08:30 AM..
Reason: Afterthought
Skepticism is at the root of rationality, and is a major source of creativity.
Although I find nothing wrong with rationalism, I do question those rationalists who only see love as a chemical reaction in the brain. To me it seems like they believe emotions to be 'inferior' to the intellect, which simply is wrong.
Man without his emotions is unbalanced, which makes him unable to truly appreciate art because he then can only perceive the technique (the stroke of the brush).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although I find nothing wrong with rationalism, I do question those rationalists who only see love as a chemical reaction in the brain. To me it seems like they believe emotions to be 'inferior' to the intellect, which simply is wrong. 
