livius drusus

Yes, actually. What about the Christians who do not see themselves as directed to spread their religion via proselytizing? Are they also spreading disease just by holding their beliefs? Is making a statement of belief of any kind the same thing as preaching? Finally, is your calling me "drusus" intentionally hostile and alienating, or is that just your way of talking man to man?

Starboy

Of course not, but you know, if you view it all as a meme, it is the secs that do spread the fasted that will dominate. Those appear to be the ones that atheists and tolerant theists (the few and far between) should be concerned with the most, not only because they are spreading fast, but because of what they are teaching their adherents.

Maybe I am over reacting to the vibes I am picking up, but they appear very hostile to me. Tit-for-tat, remember.

Starboy

seebs

Thinking about it more... I think that what is rational always depends on what premises you start from, and one of those premises will always be your own experience of the world. A person who has been surrounded by honest people may be rational in choosing to send someone a check in advance for a deal he made over the internet; a person who has been cheated or swindled might be irrational to do the same thing.

Furthermore, with philosophical issues, you often find that the world is somewhat malleable. For instance, despite knowing that there are crooks out there, I tend to interact with people on the basis of the assumption that they are honest. For instance, once, I made a deal with someone over the internet, and we settled on the "pay half, send item, pay other half" routine. (Nice game theory solution, that.) Anyway, once he sent me the email saying he'd sent the first check, I went ahead and sent the item; I felt that the chances of him bothering to lie about the check were small, and if I sent it that day, he would get it on the Friday before Christmas, which seemed like a nice present to give someone. Rational? Who can possibly evaluate the value to me of being "nice" to someone?

And yet, I don't think the solution of discounting all "nice" behavior as rational works either. (Not saying anyone here was going to pull that out, but I see it occasionally.)

It's an interesting puzzle.

livius drusus

Not at all. Much to my amazement, we've been rather cleanly on topic for 7 pages now.

I don't disagree with that. I would apply a couple of caveats, however. The brain is a remarkable thing. It can generate all kinds of hard to classify experiences. Even the most rational person can succumb to their own brain and I don't necessarily stop respecting them because of it. There but for the grace of nothing go I, donchaknow.

Well you know of course that I find you quite charming, even when you're an asshole. But seriously Beyelzu, I really am referring more to GRD than anything else because of the quality of discussion here is far more dependent on approach than factual knowledge.

I can't recall seeing a post of yours in GRD that struck me as distasteful except for one of your earliest ones (remember the altruism discussion with Ronin and Sabine a couple of decades ago?) and that wasn't even about theism or superstition. I just thought your stance on other people's misfortune was presumptuous.

Besides, unlike most people in the world (and I sadly include myself), you are really, really good at acknowledging when somebody's said something you hadn't considered before. The ability to back off is a rare and precious thing.

livius drusus

I think meme theory is overplayed, actually, and I have serious doubts as to its reliability as a predictive model. I suppose I would need to see some kind of factual indication that fundamentalism is spreading at such a precipitous rate that they outnumber the tolerant theists and that therefore we must adopt a siege mentality to survive.

The media likes freaks, after all. Seeing more of them on TV, even in very powerful positions, doesn't mean they are actually taking over. President McKinley denied the Philippines their promised independence in 1899 after a fitful night of prayer to the Almighty because, among other trumped up reasons, the US had a duty to "uplift and civilize and Christianize them and by God's grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow men for whom Christ also died." And the Filipinos were already Catholic.

Compared to that Bush is a veritable pussy cat.

Oh I disagree with you on many levels but I don't see that I've been hostile to you or treated you in any way differently than anyone else I've disagreed with on this thread and others. You can see that as hostility or bullying if you like, but I suspect you would be hard pressed to find any actual evidence of such behaviors in my posts.

Besides, you can tat my tit quite effectively and still call me livius.

beyelzu

is that a grd record??

Quote:

I don't disagree with that. I would apply a couple of caveats, however. The brain is a remarkable thing. It can generate all kinds of hard to classify experiences. Even the most rational person can succumb to their own brain and I don't necessarily stop respecting them because of it. There but for the grace of nothing go I, donchaknow.

I suppose that it is possible for a person to have a personal experience that points to the supernatural. Seebs is a good example, which is why I respect his theism more so than some other posters. I also think that his tone is conducive to treating him in a civil manner. Golden rule and all that. Also, I have never seen him use his personal experience as proof of god's existence when debating.

Quote:

Well you know of course that I find you quite charming, even when you're an asshole.

which we all know can be quite often.

Quote:

But seriously Beyelzu, I really am referring more to GRD than anything else because of the quality of discussion here is far more dependent on approach than factual knowledge.

that is also a key point, which I suppose many atheists here probably dont think of. I dont think I take that into consideration most of the time.

Quote:

I can't recall seeing a post of yours in GRD that struck me as distasteful except for one of your earliest ones (remember the altruism discussion with Ronin and Sabine a couple of decades ago?) and that wasn't even about theism or superstition. I just thought your stance on other people's misfortune was presumptuous.

Well, in truth, conversations like that one have shaped my world view and pushed me towards the left. I am grateful that ronin and sabine took the time even though it surely must have seem wasted then. I also think I tend to hold other people to the same standards I hold myself to which at times can be extreme.

Quote:

Besides, unlike most people in the world (and I sadly include myself), you are really, really good at acknowledging when somebody's said something you hadn't considered before. The ability to back off is a rare and precious thing.

Thank you, I try to be honest with myself which is often difficult, (I use the stephen king definition of asshole from thinner. Its a gigantic, overweight man getting on a scale and calling it a liar when it shows 350 pounds, I never want to be the guy that ignores proof when its righ in front of his face because he just doesnt want to believe.) I think that if a person cant learn anything being here then they have other problems. Because most of the posters here are knowledgeable even when they arent necessarily polite.


One last thing, I think that attacking magus's statements at another site is low, for reasons that have already been outlined.

Also, you should take it as a victory that you have managed to keep this thread on topic for as long as you have.

diana

This is a point I think is important for all of us to keep in mind, regardless of who we're debating: rarely does the person you argue with acknowledge--or even realize--during the discussion that he is wrong (provided he is). But if you make a good point, the person may very well take it and digest it over time, and come to your viewpoint.

Just because he doesn't cave doesn't mean your efforts were wasted.

d

Starboy

I swear, sometimes I think many atheists suffer from Stockholm syndrome. There is lots of evidence. How about our president and all that his government has been up to? Faith based initiative? Axis of evil? America is on a crusade? We are a Christian nation? Anti gay, anti abortion, anti life science research. Yikes! The political pandering alone should be an indication of the religious state of this country. What about the incredible influence in American politics of people like Fallwell? Let�s not forget all the religious tinkering that goes in our public schools, creation science, school prayer, ten commandments, religious teaching, book banning. What about the thud that followed the California supreme courts ruling about the pledge and the reaction from the Whitehouse? Don�t forget that little fracas in Alabama over the Ten Commandments in the courthouse. Its almost as if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend everything is just peachy keen.

Yes I do agree that the media freaks out but in the case of religion in this country my guess is that what is going on goes under reported not over reported because no one wants to take on the fundies.

Now I will admit that in the past it has been worse than it is now but that doesn�t mean that atheists should not be concerned with what is going on now. Things at this time are getting worse not better.

Perhaps you do not see your posts as being hostile, but when you put words in my mouth and interpret what I say in the worse possible light that is how it looks to me.

Starboy

Clutch

Um... musta been sometime...
Ah. <lightbulb> Gotcha.

seebs

That would be because it's *not* "proof". It might be "evidence", but not especially portable evidence.