Those of faith lack the use of the analytical mind: study (service, organizations)

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

I agree. Another good example is the Progressive Purity Test we see many Bernie Sanders supporters applying these days - no one is a progressive unless they agree with their policy perspectives 100%. Call it dogmatic liberalism. We saw similar dogmatism in play with Occupy Wall Street, and with Black Lives Matter.

By this logic, no one should ever engage in protest.

I did not at all appreciate the way BLM took over the Sanders rally last fall in (if memory serves) Portland for example. Sanders is a guy who was out getting arrested over black rights issues 50 years ago, and he (rightly) bristles at being lectured by young'uns about his dedication to such minority issues. But he swallowed his ego, stepped aside, and let them speak their truth.

Eventually I had to grudgingly admit that in the context of their overall tactics, this provocative and "insulting" approach was valid, if only because their objective was to force as many candidates as possible to hear their demands, and they had been unable before this incident to get past Clinton's security. After this hit the news cycle, she had no alternative but to speak with them.

Besides, Sanders hired one of BLM's founders as his press secretary. If they wanted a platform, they got it. That seems to me like the sort of reconciliation and compromise you would want to see.

You can't argue with success.

In any case you can't really fault BLM for being in your face about this when time after time after time, you have unarmed black men being killed by being shot in the back while running away from police, and similar situations like that of Eric Garner.

Do you have an issue in principle with strident, frank, disruptive protest so long as it's nonviolent? Because I don't see the BLM people doing anything different than MLK did in the 60's. Nor, to bring the point home here, do I see atheists doing anything violent or "grievously immoral" in their forum conduct.

Put another way: do you think that members of the majority should never be challenged or made uncomfortable by the minority?

[cupper3]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Never put a comma before the word 'and'.

- that you didn't like WHAT I posted.

....but if you want it to be acknowledged as a potentially valid thought ...

Again, no comma before the word 'and'.


Ooops! Again.

You simply didn't like them apparently.

You're welcome but if I were you, I would shy away from correcting other peoples grammar.

You should take a bow, after the applause.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

By this logic, no one should ever engage in protest.

There you go again mordantsplaining. You are wrong. That isn't "this logic". That's some other nonsense you made up, presumably because you didn't have a legitimate response to what I actually wrote. Let's have you stop doing that. Stop projecting from what I'm saying and respond to my comments only with replies to what I actually did write. You're really poor when it comes to guessing what is in my heart or in my mind.

Originally Posted by mordant

Do you have an issue in principle with strident, frank, disruptive protest so long as it's nonviolent?

Jesus graciously accepted being arrested for the disruption he caused. So did Gandhi. So did Dr. King. They called attention to the the value of their protest in the cost the punishment for the disruption they caused inflicted on them.

There are other types of protest, of course, such as informational protest, but those kinds of protest are not disruptive. That's someone standing on a soapbox in the Common speaking only loudly enough so that those who choose to come over and see what's going on can hear.

Originally Posted by mordant

Because I don't see the BLM people doing anything different than MLK did in the 60's.

There are a couple of differences that come to mind. First and foremost, there's a grievous lack of moderation - the dogmatism I referred to. Dr. King met with leaders of our national association with an eye toward converting to our religion and effectively becoming the most respected of our ministers, a pretty impressive heritage that includes Ralph Waldo Emerson. He declined for one and only one reason: He felt our liberalism, while it fit him like a glove, was too far left with regard to promoting his advocacy. It was too extreme, too dogmatic in its humanism and abjurement of the supernatural aspects of Christianity.

Another difference is that I don't see the kind of training for protesters these days as there was in MLK's day, vis a vis how to be arrested. There seems to be an expectation that the protesters will be permitted to disrupt with impunity, as if the leaders of the movement are lying to their supporters regarding the reasonable expectations regarding public conduct. This leads me to think that a lot of people are supporting these causes because they figure it is cheap and easy, thereby devaluing the worth of their support for the cause.

Originally Posted by mordant

Nor, to bring the point home here, do I see atheists doing anything violent or "grievously immoral" in their forum conduct.

Who's talking about "grievously immoral" in forum conduct? That's nonsense. This is about what happens in society not in the thread. In the thread the worst that is happening is juvenile idiocy, and evasive dodging of perspectives that folks don't like but for which they cannot come up with a legitimate rebuttal.

Why did you take issue with my mentioning BLM and not with regard to Sanders or Occupy Wall Street?

[Tzaphkiel]

Originally Posted by Rafius

Read what it says....'I have no respect for people who insist that stupid and verifiably false beliefs are true.'

And here is what that mindset is demonstrating: "It is my opinion that your beliefs are stupid. I am entirely unable to accept, or allow, or acknowledge that anyone can have different opinions and beliefs than I do. The only thing that is true is what agrees with my opinion. It does not matter that other people have other definitions of what is true for them. They are wrong. I am right.

"I have no respect for anyone who believes something that I think is stupid. I am smarter than you. Since I am smarter than you I engage in verbal abuse. I am fine with abusive behavior because I am blaming your beliefs for my abusive behavior. It's your fault. You deserve it. You are bringing this on yourself. I blame you for my abusive behavior. If you were smart like me you would change your beliefs. Then I would stop abusing you. I am doing this for your own good. To make you smart. Like me. I am doing you a favor by pointing out to you how stupid your beliefs are."

[bUU]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

And here is what that mindset is demonstrating: "It is my opinion that your beliefs are stupid. I am entirely unable to accept, or allow, or acknowledge that anyone can have different opinions and beliefs than I do. The only thing that is true is what agrees with my opinion. It does not matter that other people have other definitions of what is true for them. They are wrong. I am right.

Well put. That's another reason why the earlier claims about condescension were so laughable. Besides the fact that they were false and nothing but a dodge, there is nothing more condescending than the attitude that those posters were trying to support, which you've highlighted in this reply you posted.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by bUU

There you go again mordantsplaining. You are wrong.

Excuse me, but I was explaining nothing. I was making an observation and stating a reaction -- which, if mistaken, you are free to explain what your logic actually was ... which you haven't done. In any case you have no right to shut down the speech of others because you aren't comfortable with it.

Originally Posted by bUU

Why did you take issue with my mentioning BLM and not with regard to Sanders or Occupy Wall Street?

Just picked one at random to focus on. I have very similar issues with your position on Sanders and Occupy. One also has to be a bit more careful in this space discussing politics vs social justice, as it is more apt to go off on derails that divorce it from R&S and get the thread shut down.

I think for all three it is also important to distinguish between official positions and the independent actions of individuals which may or may not be sanctioned (or overlooked) by the actual organization. I think for example that Sanders has been quite specific that he wants to run a positive and respectful campaign focused on the issues and has referred to the actions of the so-called "Bernie Bros" as "disgusting crap that we don't want". I think it is fairly obvious that protesters at Trump rallies for instance are an informal amalgam of many different groups, some of whom also happen to support Bernie. You can suggest that Sanders should more vigorously distance himself from certain things but compared to Trump, who actually encourages thuggery and lawlessness in the service of his agenda, and is therefore in my book a fascist, Bernie comes out looking like a saint.

[mordant]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

And here is what that mindset is demonstrating: "It is my opinion that your beliefs are stupid. I am entirely unable to accept, or allow, or acknowledge that anyone can have different opinions and beliefs than I do. The only thing that is true is what agrees with my opinion. It does not matter that other people have other definitions of what is true for them. They are wrong. I am right.

Just for the record ... speaking for myself ... I accept, allow and acknowledge that anyone can have different opinions and beliefs than I do. And I suspect virtually all the adults in this room also do so. That is not what is at issue. What is at issue is whether people of differing beliefs must tap dance around each other and never challenge each other's thinking in a forum specifically for the purpose of debating such matters. And whether disagreeing openly with the positions of others is arrogant, rude, cruel and/or inherently or even often an attack on anyone's personhood or rights to their beliefs -- even when it is frank.

I mean, it is a simple fact that I don't see any substantiation being offered for most theist assertions. It is a simple fact that I find this intellectually dishonest and evasive. That doesn't mean I think theists who hold these positions are Bad, Unworthy people. It just means I think they are wrong and have yet to present an argument or piece of actual evidence that would belie that perception.

Your anecdotal story of the wise rabbi supposedly solving a difficult physics question that no one else could, is a perfect example. You know full well that rationalists do not accept anecdotes with no citation or substantiation as any sort of evidence ... yet when asked for an example of a single instance when a theologian has corrected a scientist, that is what you chose to do. You know full well that if theologians regularly use theology to trump scientific inquiry, we would live in a different world than we currently live in. Yet you chose a campfire story -- from all the universe of examples you presumably think there would be to offer me -- to substantiate that religious faith and theology are equivalent or superior epistemologically to the scientific method.

So ... sure, you are entitled to think that religious faith is not a failed epistemology. Knock yourself out. Enjoy yourself. I have zero issue with it and frankly zero interest in it. It's a matter of indifference to me. I do not stand in your way or oppose your right to believe anything and everything you wish to believe. But in THIS forum, where you VOLUNTARILY come and participate by advancing weak arguments and sometimes outright nonsense, you don't get a free pass and I do not cave to what you see as superior standards of evidence. You aren't entitled to be agreed with. You are simply entitle to believe what you want, and voice it if you so choose ... nothing more nor less.

If you want respect outside your religious club for your ideas then you will have to earn it like everyone else.

[bUU]

Originally Posted by mordant

Excuse me, but I was explaining nothing.

You were mordantsplaining. "By this logic..." telling me what my logic is by a perverse example you crafted. Wrong. Stop doing it.

Originally Posted by mordant

I was making an observation

No that's not an observation. An observation about what I wrote is about what I wrote, not about your perversion of what I wrote. Your projection was wrong. Admit it, apologize and move on.

Originally Posted by mordant

and stating a reaction -- which, if mistaken, you are free to explain what your logic actually was ... which you haven't done.

Yes I did! Right there in the reply you are responding to right now. Are you simply not paying attention to what you're replying to and just viscerally reacting to the visual appearance of postings?

Originally Posted by mordant

In any case you have no right to shut down the speech of others because you aren't comfortable with it.

I have every right to shut down any attempt by anyone trying to make it seem like they know what I mean, when they make stuff up instead of relying on what I told them I mean. You have no right to shove words in other people's mouths just so you have something to say in response.

Originally Posted by mordant

Just picked one at random to focus on. I have very similar issues with your position on Sanders and Occupy. One also has to be a bit more careful in this space discussing politics vs social justice, as it is more apt to go off on derails that divorce it from R&S and get the thread shut down.

I'm sorry but I find that hard to believe. Occupy is as much a spiritual matter to its supporters as BLM.

Originally Posted by mordant

I think for all three it is also important to distinguish between official positions and the independent actions of individuals which may or may not be sanctioned (or overlooked) by the actual organization.

I think that's a cop out. In all three cases the prevalence of offensive conduct is so pervasive that it is more important than the whatever alternative positions there may be held by people who claim to be the leaders of the movement. In the case of BLM and Occupy, the movements are effectively and deliberately leaderless or leader-lite, and therefore the actions done in the name of either movement are the actions of the movement. That's one of the most damning criticisms of both movements - that they're deliberately structured so that their messages can be corrupted into something offensive and indefensible. The deliberate crafting doesn't actually achieve a dodge of accountability. It just leaves the accountability on every aspect of the movement since there is no other place for the accountability to rest.

The Sanders campaign cannot hide its culpability for what is done in the name of the campaign behind a "defense" that it suffers from a lack of leadership. A namesake leader bears personal culpability for actions taken in the leader's name that the leader doesn't aggressively condemn and work diligently to prevent. The reality is that a namesake leader sets the tone, and has the power to direct and redirect the energies that are raised up in their name.

Originally Posted by mordant

I think for example that Sanders has been quite specific that he wants to run a positive and respectful campaign focused on the issues and has referred to the actions of the so-called "Bernie Bros" as "disgusting crap that we don't want".

He's paid trivial lip service. It's almost insulting that he's trying to make it seem like he's trying to assert control over the offensive activity, given how impotently he's approaching it.

Originally Posted by mordant

I think it is fairly obvious that protesters at Trump rallies for instance are an informal amalgam of many different groups, some of whom also happen to support Bernie. You can suggest that Sanders should more vigorously distance himself from certain things but compared to Trump, who actually encourages thuggery and lawlessness in the service of his agenda

I don't disagree with your comparison, but both are offenders, just at different degrees of offense.

[Tzaphkiel]

How willing, able, and comfortable are you to state the following and mean it?

"What is true for me, might not be true for someone else. Some opinions and beliefs make no sense to me. I don't understand them. Just like my opinions and beliefs make no sense to others."


"I am willing to listen to you state your views, beliefs, opinions, and experiences, without any name-calling, insults, mocking, ridiciule, belittling."

[unihills]

Originally Posted by Tzaphkiel

How willing, able, and comfortable are you to state the following and mean it?

"What is true for me, might not be true for someone else. Some opinions and beliefs make no sense to me. I don't understand them. Just like my opinions and beliefs make no sense to others."


"I am willing to listen to you state your views, beliefs, opinions, and experiences, without any name-calling, insults, mocking, ridiciule, belittling."

Having an open mind is ok as long as you don't open it so much that your brains fall out.

I have no problem stating that there are some beliefs that absolutely deserve ridicule. Some have to do with religion, and many do not.