Atheists and the endurance of religion

[phetaroi]

Originally Posted by LearnMe

Like many "arguments" that go on about this subject in this forum, I don't find most of them at all "important" to note generally speaking. The confirmation bias is so profound and the mental manipulation of data like being referred to here is barely worthy of note, let alone important. Cause/effect grossly misunderstood or purposely misrepresented. I can never be too sure which if not both...

As we discuss various topics here in the forum, and in other aspects of our lives, many of us seek support from people who have "earned a good amount of respect". There's another thread here on the forum right now about Ben Franklin. But what does that really get us? Often it gets us dueling opinions. And, however brilliant cb's latest beau is, just because he has "earned a good amount of respect", does that mean he's right? Was Einstein always right about everything? Thomas Jefferson? FDR? Were there not people who had "a good amount of respect" for Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot? Sometimes in my job as principal, I would have parents come into the school that were pretty dumb and sometimes very right about an issue, and other parents who were well-educated and famous come in that were sometimes very wrong about an issue. Heck, I had one father who was a long-time senator who came to Back To School Night two years in a row who was so senile he was campaigning...in a non-election year and in the wrong state (last I knew, Virginians couldn't vote in South Carolina).

'Experts' on our side make us feel good, but what we have to separate out -- at least in my opinion -- is are we seeing them as 'experts' on some facts, or are we seeing them as experts on 'opinions'...and are we seeing them as 'experts' just because they agree with us?

[LearnMe]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

As we discuss various topics here in the forum, and in other aspects of our lives, many of us seek support from people who have "earned a good amount of respect". There's another thread here on the forum right now about Ben Franklin. But what does that really get us? Often it gets us dueling opinions. And, however brilliant cb's latest beau is, just because he has "earned a good amount of respect", does that mean he's right? Was Einstein always right about everything? Thomas Jefferson? FDR? Were there not people who had "a good amount of respect" for Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot? Sometimes in my job as principal, I would have parents come into the school that were pretty dumb and sometimes very right about an issue, and other parents who were well-educated and famous come in that were sometimes very wrong about an issue. Heck, I had one father who was a long-time senator who came to Back To School Night two years in a row who was so senile he was campaigning...in a non-election year and in the wrong state (last I knew, Virginians couldn't vote in South Carolina).

'Experts' on our side make us feel good, but what we have to separate out -- at least in my opinion -- is are we seeing them as 'experts' on some facts, or are we seeing them as experts on 'opinions'...and are we seeing them as 'experts' just because they agree with us?

I strongly believe the argument to respect all points of view, all perspectives, all opinions and/or religions as if equal is largely born from the desire to lend credence to some points of view, some perspectives, opinions and/or religions that don't really deserve mutual respect, or the same respect or even any respect. What better way to prevent criticism of what should rightfully be criticized than to attempt this sort of protection against scrutiny?

That argument is something like the one not too long ago made about the "fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville. I mean please...

[Harry Diogenes]

Originally Posted by eddie gein

It's important to note that Golden's links were all to posts he/she made on other thread topics. All talk about China and the growth of Christianity in China along with some comments about how "educated" the Chinese are.

But the reality is that yes, Christianity is growing over there and is 5% of the population. Meanwhile the "nones" make up 75% of China. So, it stands to reason that Christianity might make some inroads considering they were starting at close to zero percent.

It's funny that they insist on our side recognizing that religion is growing around the world but they won't admit that non belief is growing in the first world.

I would be careful with the figures from China, as they are very different in the cities (where there are more atheists) to on the land; and because their view on religion is more complex (or perhaps nuanced is the correct word). Some nones will describe themselves as Daoists, others will still believe in ancestor worship.

But that is a different topic.

[GldnRule]

Originally Posted by phetaroi

As we discuss various topics here in the forum, and in other aspects of our lives, many of us seek support from people who have "earned a good amount of respect". There's another thread here on the forum right now about Ben Franklin. But what does that really get us? Often it gets us dueling opinions. And, however brilliant cb's latest beau is, just because he has "earned a good amount of respect", does that mean he's right? Was Einstein always right about everything? Thomas Jefferson? FDR? Were there not people who had "a good amount of respect" for Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot? Sometimes in my job as principal, I would have parents come into the school that were pretty dumb and sometimes very right about an issue, and other parents who were well-educated and famous come in that were sometimes very wrong about an issue. Heck, I had one father who was a long-time senator who came to Back To School Night two years in a row who was so senile he was campaigning...in a non-election year and in the wrong state (last I knew, Virginians couldn't vote in South Carolina).

'Experts' on our side make us feel good, but what we have to separate out -- at least in my opinion -- is are we seeing them as 'experts' on some facts, or are we seeing them as experts on 'opinions'...and are we seeing them as 'experts' just because they agree with us?

Originally Posted by LearnMe

I strongly believe the argument to respect all points of view, all perspectives, all opinions and/or religions as if equal is largely born from the desire to lend credence to some points of view, some perspectives, opinions and/or religions that don't really deserve mutual respect, or the same respect or even any respect. What better way to prevent criticism of what should rightfully be criticized than to attempt this sort of protection against scrutiny?

That argument is something like the one not too long ago made about the "fine people on both sides" in Charlottesville. I mean please...

Of course...more of the Atheist injection of politics into the discussion. And, naturally...all from one "side".
As per your post about how we take-in, present, and give credence to these things: The "fine people on both sides" Charlottesville argument is the Poster Child for presenting something as the exact opposite of what it was. Even editing video. All with the hope that the lie will be taken in & given credence...by those that share the same often noted "Confirmation Bias".
Very common here in the Anti-Religion arguments as well

[mensaguy]

If you people think it's OK to bring up the incident in Charlottesville, and then bring it up again, in a forum about Religion and Spirituality, you are clearly mistaken. Good way to get a thread locked.