Ethics of religious discussions?

Post Reply New Topic

The excessive presence of the latter is the reason I don't hang around PPR much these days.


Religious =/= Christian =/= creationist =/= irrational creationist with the maturity of a six year old.

I won't deny the existence of irrational creationists, but being religious doesn't make me one.


Don't generalize about people.


In this hypothetical exchange, B was rude without cause, whereas A was only wrong.

I don't have a problem with you telling people they're wrong, but there are polite ways of going about it.

I enjoy questioning scientific theories. I wouldn't be surprised if many other atheists did too.

A key difference, however, is that when I question a scientific theory openly in a manner intended to dispute its validity...I provide commensurate evidence, and a rational argument. I do this, because the current theory is in place because it has evidence, and a rational argument... If I hope to give any sort of credibility to my argument, it must be more rational, more complete, more accurate etc. and be backed with sufficient evidence that it could potentially overturn the previous understanding.

I don't see "religious" people doing this when they "argue" their case. The argument they make is often irrational, and in the place of evidence they use anecdotes and quotes. I'm sorry if you get laughed at when you claim gravity exists because god is sitting on everything because a book says so, but that claim in and of itself IS insulting to the theory of gravity, the people who meticulously study and explore gravity as a law of physics, and anyone who has ever spent time and energy learning about it. It's insulting to whoever you are trying to convince, and insulting to our species as a whole.

You might not think such radical, irrational, unsubstantiated claims are in fact insulting. But many people are insulted by it. And you will get responses that are likewise insulting.

Learn the difference between fact and belief, evidence and scripture, knowledge and faith, stop confusing one for the other. Learn to form rational arguments. And you will get insulted less. (Not none, people can always be arbitrarily aggressive) And you will be insulted less, because you have stopped mocking the people you're talking to.

I couldn't help but notice that this thread was posted in 2008. It seems like people never learn. Yes, it is intolerant of atheists to pounce on theists for their beliefs, just as it is wrong for theists to pounce on atheists for their beliefs.

Pouncing on someone for pouncing on others is slightly more dignified although still something I try to avoid lately. It's just not worth the trouble.

Atheists and theists should both be allowed to express their opinions but as soon as someone genuinely takes offense, the ethical (and also the logical thing) to do is to back off that person. Keep the criticisms general and avoid attacking individuals.

I think some atheists want to bully theists out of their beliefs but they don't realize that their "tough love" is really nothing more than hurtful bullying.

Person A made an observation about his surroundings. It DID NOT have supporting evidence.
Person B made an observation about his surroundings. It DID have supporting evidence.

Learning from the example of person B, person A tries again...

Person A makes another observation about his surroundings, this time IT DOES have supporting evidence.


Conclusion; Person B has not been rude, he has taught Person A how to make claims with supporting evidence. They both should be happy.

Not true, one side was right and the other was wrong but that does not mean that person B was not wrong in method, even if they were correct in fact. Generally speaking, skepticism is the cheapest form of intellectual capital; it is not persevering, is rarely courageous and is often condescending.

For myself, I have the works of most of the world's major atheist authors. I read Harris, Dennett, Hitchens and Dawkins before I ever picked up anything on apologetics. I find their arguments and world-views unconvincing and I prefer the theist position in terms of merit.

Twas but a joke. But, you missed the part about person A being correct in the end, which was a result of person B. I'm an ends justify the means kinda guy, so if it worked, it was worth it imo.



Generally speaking, I wholeheartedly disagree. Skepticism takes far more courage than you might suspect. Requires quite a bit of perseverance. And unlike skepticism, what you just said is condescending.

I am a skeptic myself. I question everything. There comes a point though where constant nitpicking and fault-finding actually borders on bullying behavior. This happens when the intent is not to help but to win. I see this with atheists online way more than I would like. to see.

I actually respect theists more who try to convert atheists because they are genuinely speaking out of their heart. Their beliefs may be misguided but their intent is usually pure.

Many atheists, I've found, just really enjoy debating for the debate and nothing else and don't care who they trample over in the process. I have very little respect for this kind of mentality.

I don't care if this response alienates me from people, but it is my opinion.

well there was a recent thread discussing the zeitgeist movement where the op requested the thread follow similar lines. we were allowed to ask questions that he would then answer, but the problem with this is that it doesn't make for any particularly constructive outcome, you know?

We have different ideas of value, that's all. But I do not respect people who speak solely from thier hearts. I expect people I interact with to engage thier minds as well. If they can not, or do not speak from both, then I generally do not respect them.

Similarly, how can their intent be pure? Literally they are trying to convert someone, that in and of itself is an impure motive. They are attempting to exert control over another sentient being, with direct manipulation...that's bad, very, horribly, wrong.

That's just my take, I guess. We probably hold different values as important. Nothing wrong with that per se.

The world has enough people yelling and dismissing one another, if it worked, it would have done so by now.



Skepticism can be brave, but generally it is not and it should not necessarily be confused with dissent, especially now when skepticism has a certain orthodoxy about it. The first thing that philosophy students generally do is memorize a list of fallacies, so they can attack other positions. The problem with this, is that generally, in attacking the flaw in a person's logic you may miss their central point. Every argument has a flaw, even the best ones and not everyone is actually trained to defend their positions with poise and consistency. What shocked me into studying religious apologetics was the behavior of some resident atheists; who would go to just about any length to trumpet their anti-orthodox orthodoxy. It was only later on that I discovered that the theist position actually makes more intellectual sense.

Internet atheists are very fervent in their positions, the CNN belief blog found that the most aggressive comments came from the non-believers*. I personally doubt that this requires much in the way of courage at all. In fact, trowing down the gauntlet to every believer out there will most likely only serve to build up walls between people and cause people to stop listening.

*http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/08/10-things-the-belief-blog-learned-in-its-first-year/

From Chesterton:

"The new rebel is a Skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it.

Thus he writes one book complaining that imperial oppression insults the purity of women, and then he writes another book (about the sex problem) in which he insults it himself. He curses the Sultan because Christian girls lose their virginity, and then curses Mrs. Grundy because they keep it.

As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time.

A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself.

A man denounces marriage as a lie, and then denounces aristocratic profligates for treating it as a lie.

He calls a flag a bauble, and then blames the oppressors of Poland or Ireland because they take away that bauble.

The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts.

In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything"

?

That had nothing to do with my post, at all. You are missing what I said, entirely.

Besides, philosophers might learn logical fallacies, yes. And they may in fact ask that you minimize your argument’s fallacies, yes. And that is a GOOD thing. You know what a logical fallacy is?? It's a falsehood. Why is it bad that someone wants their conversations to have less/no falsehoods? OMG, real discussion without deceit? NOWAI!!

The people you probably have more an issue with is the Sophists, they too learn of the logical fallacies, and they do so because by using them it helps them win arguments against those who cannot detect them. They purposely mislead and confuse the audience, in an attempt to win the conversation. These are not philosophers, they're lawyers. lol.

Unfortunately, that whole speal didn't make too much sense. Very inconstant. Is the subject supposed to be a skeptic? Because from the first line the subject was a rebel (a new one, at that)...but somewhere in there he starts talking about pessimists instead, so is that who we're talking about? Then it just spirals into some nonsense of ironic nature. Then we're talking about revolutionists...can we stay focused?? Jesus. And to top it off, I disagree with the whole thing, it might appear slightly clever I guess, but it's only clever on the surface. There is no depth to any of his words, like putting a high gloss finish on a rusty car. It might sparkle from a distance, but it's still a piece of crap, and it’s rotting from within. Thanks for introducing me to Chesterton, I have determined he's a tool. I'm glad he has decided he has the moral authority to decide for everyone else who has the right to rebel.

I honestly have NO idea where any of this reply came from. You quoted me, so I somewhat expected it to be in reply to me…but it doesn’t address what I discussed on any basic level at all, so I’m fairly confused what you're trying to say.

Unless to you Skeptic=Philosopher=Pessimist=Sophist=Athiest=Rebel=Revolutionist=Politician=Scientist. I hold to the idea that we have different words for different things, myself. I like to use different words occasionally to label things that are...well, different. You might like to try it, its fun

PS. If you detect any hostility from me, it's because your above post is actually very insulting, and I think it's rather uncalled for.

Oh jeez, that thread was a real clusterf*ck

Is it also intolerant of scientists to attack and criticize each other's hypotheses? Should we abandon peer review and scientific debate for the sake of tolerance?

If someone claims "god did this" and teaches this belief to others, his faith becomes a hypothesis that needs to be reviewed, tested, and either verified or falsified. That's how we (=humanity as a whole) advance human knowledge. If people don't want that to happen, they need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop teaching them.

Skepticism is a necessary tool of scientific research and human progress. If it wasn't for skeptically analyzed, tested, falsified, corrected, and refined knowledge, you wouldn't be able to type these thoughts on a computer keyboard and share them on a global network. Neither your PC nor the internet is a product of theism, not to mention clean water, central heating, and modern medicine.

Question: If someone had a heart attack, would you rather pray for that person or call an ambulance and put your money on the skeptical medical science community? If you would do both, which of these things would you do first?

According to your theory above, where you justify insulting other people based on their insulting an inanimate set of ideas, I ought to insult you quite nastily for this, since I happen to like and respect Chesterton's writings. I won't, but perhaps you should reconsider your theory that insults are justified by people disliking other people's ideas. If everyone did this, nobody would talk about anything interesting, because as soon as they started, insults would be flying in both directions.


That's really weird. It seemed quite tame to me. Where was the alleged insult?


This is true. Neither is it a product of atheism. Nor a product of philosophy. Nor of any political party, or politics as a whole. Nor of the arts.

If that fact can debunk theism, haven't you also debunked atheism, philosophy, art, etc?


Both, ambulance first. That isn't putting trust in skepticism, though. It's putting hope in other people's actions and the equipment they use. Since their actions and equipment are derived from knowledge which is scientific, it is indirectly putting hope in science. There need be no skepticism among any of the paramedics, doctors, patient, myself, or any of the scientists.

From a theological perspective, prayer isn't magic (IMO), but even if I thought prayer was magic, I'd still call the ambulance, and do it first. There is no harm in doing both, but calling the ambulance second might be bad, whereas praying second wouldn't be.