Those of faith lack the use of the analytical mind: study (principle, Earth)
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.
the person who is smarter, is the one who knows the difference between being arrogant and being smart. The person who is wise doesn't just know the difference, they also have the level of self-awareness to put it into practice in their interactions.
You're flogging a dead horse. I have no respect for people who insist that stupid and verifiably false beliefs are true. If someone insists that the Sun orbits the Earth then it is a stupid belief and he that holds such a belief and insists that it is true should be ridiculed.
Similarly those that insist that two of every species on the planet fitted onto a boat for a year, along with their food and were then release on a barren land that had been under water for a year and still managed to produce the diversity of species we see today, need to be exposed for what they are...fools!
I'll post it again.....
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge.....'
H.L Mencken
Here is the first sentence in your post. I challenge you to diagram that sentence's grammar to prove that nothing is missing: "Do you realize that on a thread the use of the analytical mind between theist and non theist you quoted a non theist?" The reality is that your writing was not comprehensible, though your tone was. I think we all know what you were trying to say - that you didn't like I posted - but if you want it to be acknowledge as a potentially valid thought you're going to have to express it in full sentences, and not just outline what you didn't like about what was said but also include why you didn't like it. Start over. Write a full thought and I promise to give it the attention it deserves.
"Is what I was trying to say is..." In a reply to a comment that was expressing concern that your comments were not understandable because of grammar, you wrote that sentence? Really?
Regardless, you are trying to use words like "agenda" to make it seem like someone who disagrees with you is somehow wrong. I don't have an agenda any more than you do. I have a point, and that point is that the accusation consistently directed against religious reactionaries but the behavior is practiced by atheists as well. Each time you try to make it seem like you have some reason to think that my point is not correct I will refute your contention by pointing out how your reason is faulty. That's what I'm supposed to do. I have no idea what you're supposed to do.
No, I don't understand that because it is untrue. You're not making sense. I'm actually quite concerned about it, otherwise I would ignore you, or post a comment writing you off in some marginalizing way (i.e., stopping this reply after the worse "Nonsense" at the very top of the reply). Instead, I'm paying attention to you, and working with you to try to get to the point where you actually make clear your contention, and presumably can come to understand that the comments I made, which you objected to, were actually correct.
That's also nonsense. I'm engaging in discussion, being very clear, concise and respectful. It seems you think that disagreeing with you is somehow wrong. You're mistaken.
Because my comments weren't condescending. You apparently simply didn't like them. Why not actually express the specific concerns you have instead of posting self-ratifying nonsense?
Yet again, I'll reiterate my point. If you have a problem with it, speak directly to it, clearly and comprehensively, and I promise to give your objections appropriate consideration.
You may not intend to be condescending but it sure comes across that way. Most of us were apparently able to decipher what you perceived as gibberish.
That's also nonsense. I'm engaging in discussion, being very clear, concise and respectful. It seems you think that disagreeing with you is somehow wrong. You're mistaken.
You are being all of those things while also belittling a person for their grammar on an internet forum. You do believe you understood the post, yet chose to condescend to L8 over a minor grammatical error when this thread is absolutely filled with theist posts rambling incoherently. And yet you chose the atheist post for your selective outrage on grammar and coherence (my hyperbole ackowledged).
And yes if I disagree with someone else, I am inclined to suspect they are wrong until I see my opinion invalidated or debunked. I'm not special in that regard either. But while I generally try to have good reasons for the opinions I hold, and care whether my opinions are reflecting reality, I'm often (enough) wrong or imprecise about things I am less familiar with and willing to adapt when I find new information. Like my impression from your posts in this thread, for example, which seem to me as if you are trying to somehow rationalize yourself as the model practitioner of decorum. I find that to be hypocritical and self-righteous when you engage in the same behavior you somehow only find atheist examples of...but I'm open to the idea that perhaps I'm mistaken or missed a post or 2 somewhere.
I don't care that you choose to point out the faults you observe with atheists and atheist arguments, especially in relation to the study in the OP. Atheists aren't exempt from fallacies either. Nor do I have any issues with your tact or tone, to the extent I can discern it through text. I'm just saying that you have said (paraphrasing here) that you prefer the tact of Dr. MLK over the tone that you perceive from atheists....and I'm seeing the same tone from you.
Quote:
Because my comments weren't condescending. You apparently simply didn't like them. Why not actually express the specific concerns you have instead of posting self-ratifying nonsense?
Yet again, I'll reiterate my point. If you have a problem with it, speak directly to it, clearly and comprehensively, and I promise to give your objections appropriate consideration.
Mostly covered above so I'll spare you a retread...but will point out that I don't disagree with your quoted excerpt.
Last edited by MartinEden99; 04-05-2016 at 09:14 AM..
Reason: Comma error. ...thanks Rafius! :)
the person who is smarter, is the one who knows the difference between being arrogant and being smart. The person who is wise doesn't just know the difference, they also have the level of self-awareness to put it into practice in their interactions.
How about if you in your own words explain the difference between being arrogant and being smart?
Rafius declines to answer the simple question above. It appears he is unwilling to answer it, unable to answer it, uncomfortable answering it, or all of those. Maybe someone else who self-defines as an atheist can answer it?
How about if you in your own words explain the difference between being arrogant and being smart?
Arrogance is telling another person that there is an imperceptible entity, which conveniently shares my morality, that I can't demonstrate but that they ought to obey. Such is the arrogance of religions.
Smart is acknowledging that we have different ways of interpreting reality....and that we ought to establish a method to understand reality better without our predisposed biases. Such is the brilliance of the Scientific Method.
Wisdom (which you didnt ask for but is worthwhile) is withholding the desire to presume we are correct without being smart about it. Such is the wisdom of inquiry and reflection.
You're welcome but if I were you, I would shy away from correcting other peoples grammar.
Remarkably, you had no problem understanding what I wrote well enough to correct my spelling and punctuation and typos; and I'm perfectly fine with your amendments and so we can amiably move on from your corrections. Meanwhile, the nonsense L8Gr8Apost8 posted earlier remains uncorrected, and therefore unintelligible, and you, 1insider, and MartinEdit99, folks who object to the moral perspective I have shared earlier (how convenient), are maniacally trying to pile on to the effort to drown out that which you don't like but for which you have no legitimate response, whining about non-existent condescension and all manner of other nonsense. I'm not going to feed your efforts to further deflect from what I'm writing. Stick to the topic; stop talking about the discussion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
I have no respect for people who insist that stupid and verifiably false beliefs are true.
So we've reached the crux of the matter, self-ratifying self-promotion. The reality is that everyone is equally worthy of basic human decency, even people who believe things you don't. That's really my biggest problem with dogmatic atheism: How readily it seems to lead so many people into grievously immoral behavior.
Rafius declines to answer the simple question above. It appears he is unwilling to answer it, unable to answer it, uncomfortable answering it, or all of those. Maybe someone else who self-defines as an atheist can answer it?
Tzaphkiel refuses to answer the question posed in post 182. It appears he/she is unwilling to answer it, unable to answer it, uncomfortable answering it, or all of those.
Your response here completely misses the intent of what you quoted from L8....
Quote:
Originally Posted by L8Gr8Apost8
if I slowed down any more I would be in reverse
I read that as self-depreciating humor. Meaning....I can't go any slower than I am, which is already slower than most people.
Nothing childish about it and certainly not worth mocking somebody who is already mocking her self.
Quote:
Here is the first sentence in your post. I challenge you to diagram that sentence's grammar to prove that nothing is missing: "Do you realize that on a thread the use of the analytical mind between theist and non theist you quoted a non theist?" The reality is that your writing was not comprehensible, though your tone was. I think we all know what you were trying to say - that you didn't like I posted - but if you want it to be acknowledge as a potentially valid thought you're going to have to express it in full sentences, and not just outline what you didn't like about what was said but also include why you didn't like it. Start over. Write a full thought and I promise to give it the attention it deserves.
I don't see what's so incomprehensible. You could ask for clarification if it doesn't appear clear to you but her post is nowhere close to being incomprehensible as you are suggesting.
I suspect you are engaging in projection of your own dislike of her actual observation....which is that you are mocking atheist posts while talking about how non-empathic atheists are. Whether I agree with that statement aside....it isn't unclear to me until L8 corrects my interpretation of her intent.
The reality is that everyone is equally worthy of basic human decency, even people who believe things you don't.
Basic human decency is everyone's right. That is the right to exist, to be treated equally, and to be left alone (freedom of association).
If theists want to be left alone and not associate with unbelievers then they don't have to come here and talk with us. If on the other hand they come here, and wish to participate in the free marketplace of ideas, then they are no longer able to cry foul when they encounter dissent or criticism for their ideas -- or to claim "grievously immoral behavior" when evidential and/or logical substantiation is requested. Or to declare their particular beliefs "off limits" from same.
Basic human decency does not include the right to "never hear a discouraging word". It is not exemption of one's ideas from dissent or criticism. It is the exemption of one's personhood from attack and diminishment.
People here constantly try to equate disrespect for beliefs with hatred or disrespect or "grievously immoral behavior" against their personhood. You and I are not our beliefs. Disagreement -- even frank, pungent, or satirical disagreement -- has nothing to do with our worthiness as human beings, our right to believe what we wish.
Theists .. even liberal ones it would seem ... want special protection for their cherished beliefs. And in practice, in Real Life, I give them that, though strictly speaking it is not theirs to demand. I don't challenge even every hundredth fool thing a theist says to me in meatspace because it is a matter of indifference to me and there is little to be gained; I'd rather be happy than right. But this is a place specifically for debating religious and spiritual beliefs. I will fight to the death your right to believe whatever you want ... but I will not give it a free pass in a debate either.
Theists need to grow thicker skins and get over the loss of their historic taboos against questioning their dogmas. Those days are over.
After all, as an unbeliever, I'm expected to be okay with being told that I am offensive to them and their god and deserve to languish forever chained in a pool of boiling water with flames licking at me for eternity. And not to take it personally.
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.
