Better the illusions that exalt us ......

[Ryan O'Dine]

snip...
Science produces all sorts of wonders -- that Cassini picture of Saturn eclipsing the sun is utterly breathtaking -- but science, in and off itself, doesn't drive us to greatness politically or poetically. Politics and poety do though, and we have those as well.

You seem to be implying that science in and of itself cannot be said to have a poetical nature. Personally, I’ve met many an equation that had all the effect on me of a Keatsian ode. Am I that much of a freak? (And do I really want to know?)

In fact, I’d also argue that the drive of science always to reach further and break new ground often overlaps with the drive of politics always to collectively better ourselves.

I don’t think these realms are mutually exclusive, if that’s anything like your position.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You seem to be implying that science in and of itself cannot be said to have a poetical nature. Personally, I’ve met many an equation that had all the effect on me of a Keatsian ode. Am I that much of a freak? (And do I really want to know?)

In fact, I’d also argue that the drive of science always to reach further and break new ground often overlaps with the drive of politics always to collectively better ourselves.

I don’t think these realms are mutually exclusive, if that’s anything like your position.

Yes, that's basically my position. How I read the OP, at least the first part of it, was that he was saying the scientific method does not produce wonder and awe, and I've got to agree with that. It's a fantastically important method, but it's hard to warm up to on a Saturday night. The sceintific method and skepticism are methods for ridding ourselves of the dreck ideas that seem to pop into our heads.

But the wonders of science, the discoveries? That's a different thing altogether, stacked with awe and wonder aplenty, more than any religion could ever dream. There is more to skeptics and more to science than only the scientific method.

As for the drive of science, I would probably rephrase that as the drive of humans doing the science thing rather than the drive of science; but I think we mean the same thing.

 

[articulett]

I don't think anyone is saying that because something isn't factual or isn't a truth that it's a lie or an illusion. And nobody is denying that anything about religion is untrue. I'm sure there are geographical and historical accuracies in most religions. As well as positive ideals or goals or teachings.

Not all notions fall into one or the other category (Truth or falsehood). There are a lot of things that are not truths that are not lies nor illusions to the majority of people... but, apparently not to people bent on seeing something bad about skepticism.

There are objective truths that are the same for everybody no matter what they believe... such as the nature of the cosmos... and there is everything else-- it depends on a viewpoint... opinion, myth, conjecture, ideals, mottos, dreams, aspirations, hopes, beliefs, myths, lies, deceptions, illusions, delusions, stories, parables, interpretations, poetry, language, etc.

None of those things are truths. They can be based on true things... they can inspire and move and exalt people... they can have degrees of "truth" in them... they can help humans understand truths--but they are not themselves truths. This doesn't mean that they are falsehoods. I would imagine that most people here understand this quite well. Moreover... I think most would concur that religions tend to claim to have "divine truths" that they use to exalt people. But these "divine truths" show no correspondence with reality... there is no evidence of "divine truths"... just like there is no evidence of "moral truths". There are moral ideals... things we aspire to... positive ways to view the world that makes it better and more pleasant for the most people. Most religions appear to be in the illusion/delusion promoting business as a means of making people feel exalted. This doesn't mean they don't inspire good or useful ideals.

Ideals or shared goals that unite people can surely be exalting, uplifting, and wonderful... so can poetry and understanding the wonderful things we are discovering about our world... that all life is related... that is inspiring to me. We all have a common ancestor... we have a common ancestor with our pets and the trees in our yard! That's true and inspiring. Sharing those sorts of truths and eliminating the real truths from the illusions is what skepticism is about to me. I have felt the exaltation of new agey kind of beliefs... but I don't want my exaltation to come from delusions. I'm not against others getting their exaltation that way. But I am smart enough to understand the difference between objective truths... and metaphor, illusion, wishful thinking, etc.

I think this idea of these arguments about "certain people" on this forum that reflect badly on skepticism is based on straw men... stereotyping... hearing things that aren't there.

I see the OP as rocketdodger does... as the majority appears to. A poetic phrase was used to imply that skeptics lack something or other because they are too focused on the scientific method... the truth. And it stated that something other than the truth (illusion) was better. But an illusion without recognition that it is an illusion is what Sylvia Browne does... what preachers do... what scam artists do. In what way is that better? And illusions that you know are illusions is what Randi does... what optical illusions are about.

The OP mischaractherized a group of people without being specific to make it sound like skepticism is something it is not... to make it sound unsavory... and it elevated religion to make it sound like something it isn't-- something better than other methods --particularly the scientific method for exalting people. There are lots of ways people feel exalted... I don't think illusions nor lies are necessary... and they can be dangerous and deceive trusting people. There are lots of exalting things that are not "falsehoods" as mentioned before. It is a false dichotomy. Moreover, skeptics don't use the scientific method to be "exalted"... they use the scientific method to find the truth. The scientific method is not my "approach to life" it's my approach to truth. Because it's the very best at finding it. Most people apparently can't tell truth from everything else. I am exalted by discovering and understanding and sharing the truth with others who wish to share it. I am not anyone's opponent, and this is not a debate to me.

I was interested in the OP... was it true?... is this useful information to me?... is this promoting a stereotype or a false dichotomy..? am I missing something that would be beneficial to know...? is this an attempt at deriding skepticism and building up religion disguised as a request for information-- opinion proffering disguised as a request for dialogue-- or a sincere request as to what skepticism offers...

And when I try to find out... it just seems like it's another opinion proffered as discussion but designed to infer that skeptics are nihilists or mean or strident or dull or attacking or dragging down others or approach life through the scientific method-- same ol' apologetic nonsense unsupported by evidence... propped up by semantics... propping up a stereotype while feeling humble and diplomatic.

Does the OP really believe that an illusion (per dictionary definition) is better than 10,000 truths? Can he give an example? Has anyone? Is he confusing Illusion with ideals? Does he really believe all the negative stuff he said about JREF... and if so, why is he here? Why does he think it's okay to insult a group of people that way without backing it up?

He said: JREF is contrary to the whole idea. More a deconstructor of exaltation than a provider, hellbent to drag dreams down and to denigrate their providers He confused it with the scientific method and imagined that it cannot provide exaltation, but only destroy it... and it seemed to me he sought to support that straw man with semantics.

That statement is an epithet, a strawman, and a lie. It made me defensive. Why do we have to listen to this stuff over and over on a skeptics forum. Aren't skeptics generally good at knowing what words mean and why these are fallacious reasoning promoting confirmation bias? Wouldn't anyone on a skeptic forum be interested in understanding why? Where is the evidence for this derogatory claim? JREF exalts many members from what I see... TAM is one of the most exalting experiences of my life... and I suggest this is true for the majority of the increasing number of attendees. What could be more ennobling then spreading the truth and teaching each other how we fool ourselves so that we don't get fooled some more--all among some of the most humble and humorous and intelligent people around? What is better than teaching our fellow humans that there is "no man behind the curtain"-- all the secrets of the universe are available to everyone equally so long as they can understand the basics.

I am insulted by this pretend humility and diplomacy where skeptics are demonized with strawmen and the illusions proffered by religions are repackaged as "moral truths" or "ideals" or something else...

People might not be aware that they are being insulting and judgmental to skeptics as a whole, but they can learn. They can also learn to make their speech and meaning and goals of communication clear. Make sure that people are using words the same way... understanding the nuances and the differences between terms.

To me, people need to see skepticism as something bad in order to believe that faith is good. When they get angry and they stop making sense to me, I just assume that they are protecting this belief they need to have for now. I step away. I don't want to debate over beliefs or opinions. I want to find the commonalities using the words we all can understand. I don't want to get into semantics... I want to understand the truth that is the same for everybody... and separate it from the opinions and feelings, so I can get a more complete and accurate understanding of the conversation, my opinions about it and what true or useful thing I can learn or share.

 

[Ryan O'Dine]

Yes, that's basically my position. How I read the OP, at least the first part of it, was that he was saying the scientific method does not produce wonder and awe, and I've got to agree with that. It's a fantastically important method, but it's hard to warm up to on a Saturday night. The sceintific method and skepticism are methods for ridding ourselves of the dreck ideas that seem to pop into our heads.

But the wonders of science, the discoveries? That's a different thing altogether, stacked with awe and wonder aplenty, more than any religion could ever dream. There is more to skeptics and more to science than only the scientific method.

As for the drive of science, I would probably rephrase that as the drive of humans doing the science thing rather than the drive of science; but I think we mean the same thing.

Thanks for clarifying.

I’m not sure even the methods of pursuing science and those of pursuing art are as exclusive as you say, but I need to think that through more, and am not quite prepared to argue the matter.

I do think it's an interesting discussion, though.

 

[blauregen]

There seem to be several misunderstandings, for which only I am to blame. Any perceived attack from my side was unintentional and I am sorry to have offended you.

The title of the original-posting was meant to draw attention. My expectations were that a widely known citation would send readers on a mental search for meaning, and for examples of 'exalting Illusions' in their own experience, that could provide a frame of reference. My experience with the 'No Atheists in a Foxhole'-Thread should have taught me, that poetic expressions here are often taken literally.

In addition, I think I violated a local taboo, by implying that illusions or worse, the 'r-word' could provide anything beneficial. Closer reading of the forum would have told me that this is likely to draw a strong defensive reaction. It is as rude to do this here, as discussing the virtues of atheism in a forum of fundamentalist christians would be. I apologize for my rudeness and I assure you that in the future I will apply extreme caution in adressing this topic.

You don't think that sounds like a dichotomy, wasp?

Here he is clearly saying that the scientific approach 1) should offer a source of exaltation and 2) if it did, it should be an optional replacement for other sources of exaltation.

And this illustrates my point perfectly -- he is trying to trick people into thinking that science is something it is not, and then on the basis of science failing to provide something it isn't even supposed to, that it is a poor replacement for something it isn't even meant to replace. The end result? People thinking they have to choose non-rational exaltation over the scientific method.

Again, this is my fault. I conflated the issue of public perception of skepticism as a movement with the question about inspiration and exaltation from a skeptical worldview. I should have adressed this issues seperately. However this aspect was answered sufficiently too:

Atheists don't need to work on their "image" any more than those who don't believe in astrology do. The image is in the minds of the faithful and they NEED to see atheism a certain way so they can feel good and noble about their faith and not like the delusional folks that they imagine those who believe other woo are. The faithful need to worry more about how their holier than thou ignorance reflects on them... not telling us what we can do to make them "accept" us. We're not responsible for their delusions or the fact that reality doesn't match want they want to believe it does.

The tenor of this answer seems to be that, if there are any problems with the public perception of atheists, this is an error on the side of the rest of the world, and that consequently the rest of the world has to adapt to the atheist position. I don't know to what degree this reflects the attitude of the skeptics-movement in general, but since it wasn't contradicted I so far consider it to be representative. Again thank you for adressing this aspect too.

The whole exchange so far was very interresting and educating, and I hope my rudeness of adressing neuralgic points will be forgiven.

 

[articulett]

My tenor is, that no matter how you phrase things... you can't change illusions in peoples minds that they accept as truth. If they need to see atheists as bad, so they can perceive faith is good, then the atheist can't win... the view of the atheist is not based on anything actually said... rather an interpretation. It's a way to silence the atheist while imagining your own opinion proffering is humble and diplomatic in my opinion.

Moreover, nobody says all religion is bad or that religion hasn't done some good. The apologists just keep hearing that... as though people are saying that. They are saying that you can get all the benefits of religion without the delusions, illusions, lies, fears, and promises that have no evidence behind them.

The phrase all men are created equal was originally applied only to white male land owners... it was a way of saying that no one has special rights or entitlement by divine decree, bloodlines, nor royalty.

It has been expended... primarily by secularists... to include all of humanity... it's an expansion on the golden rule. It's a way of saying that if you are going to deny rights to others or stereotype them or do things to other people that you don't want done to you, you better have a damn good reason for it. And if you are going to allow yourself rights that you do not want others to have... you better have a damn good reason for it. I think it's clear that all humans have similar capacities for suffering and exaltation. The phrase isn't a truth... it's a tool to help us understand why we ought to treat others right and well.... the way we want ourselves and loved ones treated. We don't need threats of god or hell to hold ideals. But to confuse ideals with truth is sloppy reasoning across the board. To use it to denigrate skeptics is a straw man. No skeptic needs to nor can be held responsible for people imaginations, illusions, of them. They aren't based on the truth... they aren't based on actual words or actions... they are based on misinterpretations that make the apologist feel humble and diplomatic and sincere without actually being so.

IMO

Despite your strawman, a skeptics job is not to disabuse people of their delusions or stereotypes... for myself, I don't worry about the opinions of people who don't worry about my opinions about them. That's logical. I don't take advice about changing my words or approach or communication styles from people whom I think communicate poorly. And that is why I say, the atheist does not need to worry about what others think of them. They are free to consider what it is they think of the person proffering the "helpful criticisms" first.

Those implying that atheists or JREFers me or other skeptics are "offensive"-- seem more offensive to me than those they are calling offensive. They seem blind to their own offensiveness and insults while imagining it in others... it's not there in the words.

What words have I said that are as offensive as this: The skeptics movement, judging from JREF is contrary to the whole idea. More a deconstructor of exaltation than a provider, hellbent to drag dreams down and to denigrate their providers.??

 

[Robin]

In addition, I think I violated a local taboo, by implying that illusions or worse, the 'r-word' could provide anything beneficial. Closer reading of the forum would have told me that this is likely to draw a strong defensive reaction. It is as rude to do this here, as discussing the virtues of atheism in a forum of fundamentalist christians would be. I apologize for my rudeness and I assure you that in the future I will apply extreme caution in adressing this topic.

No, that won't do blauregen. I have spent a good deal of time in this forum arguing that religions have historically provided benefits to society. So have others.

So there is no such taboo on this site and you cannot claim to be the victim of prejudice.

What you need to do is to state your argument a little more clearly and to provide any reasoning you have behind it.

The tenor of this answer seems to be that, if there are any problems with the public perception of atheists, this is an error on the side of the rest of the world...

What are you suggesting? That if people say, for example, I am immoral then I must really be immoral and that the religious folk who claim this could not possibly be mistaken????

 

[blauregen]

What are you suggesting? That if people say, for example, I am immoral then I must really be immoral and that the religious folk who claim this could not possibly be mistaken????

Of course not. If indeed the public image of atheists would be that they are immoral, and if your stance would be that it is their job to understand you, and that you have no reason whatsoever to take action to correct this misconception, then I would of course accept that you are entitled to hold this opinion, and I would wish you good luck with it.

The question would only be pertinent if skeptics as members of a movement would be interrested in how they are publicly perceived.

To illustrate a possible problem if this would be the case, I had linked to this wired-article in an earlier posting. I think the author shows the different approaches of modern proponents of systems of beliefs and skeptic-groups to the public, and the difference in how they are perceived quite well.

To prevent further misunderstandings I want to add that I in no way wish to endorse a negative image of atheists, and that I condemn any attempts at indoctrination of children.

 

[-Fran-]

The
In addition, I think I violated a local taboo, by implying that illusions or worse, the 'r-word' could provide anything beneficial. Closer reading of the forum would have told me that this is likely to draw a strong defensive reaction. It is as rude to do this here, as discussing the virtues of atheism in a forum of fundamentalist christians would be. I apologize for my rudeness and I assure you that in the future I will apply extreme caution in adressing this topic.

As far as the "r-word" go, it's not my impression that it's taboo to discuss its possible benefits here. You will get a lot of people who do not agree that it is beneficial, I guess, but people not agreeing is not the same thing as the subject being taboo. I'd say that people talking against things on a forum (even if it's seemingly a 'strong defensive reaction' and seems to be almost unanimous) is a good sign it's not taboo. There are no talking at all about things that are taboo and the one bringing it up will be ignored, silenced or banned and so on.

Personally I do see that there are certain things with religion that could indeed be said to beneficial (at least for some individuals, I am not so sure about if it is for society as a whole). The thing is that all the things I have seen, so far, being mentioned as a good thing about religion, are such things that can be provided by other things than religion! There doesn't seem to be any good things about religion that is unique to religion only! And so, for me, in the light of all the bad things religion brings (a few of which I suspect might actually be unique to religion) there is no reason to defend religion on the grounds that there are some good things about it.

 

[rocketdodger]

In addition, I think I violated a local taboo, by implying that illusions or worse, the 'r-word' could provide anything beneficial. Closer reading of the forum would have told me that this is likely to draw a strong defensive reaction. It is as rude to do this here, as discussing the virtues of atheism in a forum of fundamentalist christians would be. I apologize for my rudeness and I assure you that in the future I will apply extreme caution in adressing this topic.

No.

The ONLY taboo we have here is bringing up an issue, making a claim or argument in the context of that issue, and then ignoring or sidestepping counter-arguments.

You don't seem to have done that yet, so any animosity is probably not directed at you. Rather, it is directed at the regular issue-dodgers we have to deal with who poke their heads into threads like this and vomit their usual nonsense (E.G. plumjam, radrook, jerome, DOC, whoever) without providing anything resembling a rational argument as to why we should listen to them.

By all means, please bring up anything and everything involving illusions and religion, because that is what we are all here to do -- have a discussion about it. Just make sure you address everyone's points, because that is what the essence of discussion is.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Thanks for clarifying.

I’m not sure even the methods of pursuing science and those of pursuing art are as exclusive as you say, but I need to think that through more, and am not quite prepared to argue the matter.

I do think it's an interesting discussion, though.

Oh, no, not exclusive at all. I see it all as existing on a continuum -- some people are extremely analytic and some are extremely creative. Most of us sit somewhere between the poles. Most of the folks here, including me, tend more toward the analytic, so we all have a tendency toward pushing the science side of things. It doesn't hurt for any of us to be reminded of the other side. That is why I told Neil deGrasse-Tyson's story from Beyond Belief, 2006. Both sides of our brains are important. The best balance, I think, includes appeals to the intuitive side (happens in science all the time and in politics most of the time) with skepticism to pare away the junk and leave the pearls. One of the dangers is when you have a leader who is a decider and leads by his gut. Leave out the analytic side and you get the U.S. in 2008.

 

[blauregen]

The ONLY taboo we have here is bringing up an issue, making a claim or argument in the context of that issue, and then ignoring or sidestepping counter-arguments.

You don't seem to have done that yet, so any animosity is probably not directed at you. Rather, it is directed at the regular issue-dodgers we have to deal with who poke their heads into threads like this and vomit their usual nonsense (E.G. plumjam, radrook, jerome, DOC, whoever) without providing anything resembling a rational argument as to why we should listen to them.

Actually, due to my error in phrasing the original posting ambigously and conflated and later trying to accomodate to different interpretations, there are by now more issues than I can discuss with multiple people, without a vacation, a glossary and a drawing board for diagrams. exaltation as an emotional experience vs. exaltation in an ethical framework ( as an attempted answer to 'Who is exalted' ) vs. emotional exaltation as an instrument to instill and strengthen beliefs. The 'r-word' as a possible source of possibly beneficial beliefs vs. The 'r-word' as a transmitter of ethical values ( and possible as a provider of safety in a society which poses ethical questions at an accelerated speed ). Possible advantages of ingrained shared beliefs vs. individual reasoning. Public perception of atheists vs. Selfimage of atheists......

I'd honestly love to discuss some of these topics, because I saw some very thoughtful answers that showed me alternative perspectives, but in it's current form and with a few offended sensibilities, the thread is too wide for me to manage completely.

 

[Robin]

Of course not. If indeed the public image of atheists would be that they are immoral, and if your stance would be that it is their job to understand you, and that you have no reason whatsoever to take action to correct this misconception, then I would of course accept that you are entitled to hold this opinion, and I would wish you good luck with it.

I think that illustrates the problem very neatly. How can I correct a misperception if you will simply ignore what I say and instead put words or your own into my mouth?

I did not say that it is anybody's job to understand me or that I should have not reason to correct somebody's incorrect opinion of me.

But if someone has a perception of me and that perception is incorrect, then the error is very definitely on their side. That would seem to be beyond argument.

The question would only be pertinent if skeptics as members of a movement would be interrested in how they are publicly perceived.

I don't know how anyone could address an incorrect perception without somehow engaging the fact that the perception was incorrect.

To illustrate a possible problem if this would be the case, I had linked to this wired-article in an earlier posting. I think the author shows the different approaches of modern proponents of systems of beliefs and skeptic-groups to the public, and the difference in how they are perceived quite well.

Indeed he is actively reinforcing the mis-perception. For example his last sentence seems to imply that "the new atheists" are evincing a position of absolute certainty.

Oh and by the way, you did not respond to the other part of my post. Do you now accept that their is no taboo in this forum against suggesting that religion may provide benefits?

 

[Herzblut]

In that case please do tell - how can you live your life without ever, in any circumstances, treating another person as a means to an end?

Let me change one or two words to clarify Kant's Categorical Imperativ:

1. Act only from a maxim that you can at the same time want to become a universal law.
2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never merely (!) as a means to an end.

Man is always to be regarded as a subject, an end in itself. Man may never be regarded just as an object of your action, as a means to an end.

It is therefore morally unacceptable to have sex with a comatose person to satisfy your libido, because you reduce this person to a mere object. This judgment is valid even if no harm is caused at all.

H.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Ideals or shared goals that unite people can surely be exalting, uplifting, and wonderful... so can poetry and understanding the wonderful things we are discovering about our world... that all life is related... that is inspiring to me. We all have a common ancestor... we have a common ancestor with our pets and the trees in our yard! That's true and inspiring. Sharing those sorts of truths and eliminating the real truths from the illusions is what skepticism is about to me. I have felt the exaltation of new agey kind of beliefs... but I don't want my exaltation to come from delusions. I'm not against others getting their exaltation that way. But I am smart enough to understand the difference between objective truths... and metaphor, illusion, wishful thinking, etc.

Exactly. That is what I think is the best response to the OP. There are all sorts of political lessons that can be drawn from our inter-relatedness that provide stirling exhortations to action.

I think this idea of these arguments about "certain people" on this forum that reflect badly on skepticism is based on straw men... stereotyping... hearing things that aren't there.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. Blauregen would have to specify. I've heard this complaint too many times simply to blow it off, but it could arise from preconceptions, that is true. It strikes me that many of the things that are said of atheists now were said of Christians in the Roman age. Whether or not secularism will prove to be the new "religion" (I know, it isn't proper to use that word here, but what might replace the old religions) remains to be seen, but I think it already serves the purpose on a higher level for many folks (I am thinking of religion as the combination of cosmological and ethical pursuits).

I see the OP as rocketdodger does... as the majority appears to. A poetic phrase was used to imply that skeptics lack something or other because they are too focused on the scientific method... the truth. And it stated that something other than the truth (illusion) was better. But an illusion without recognition that it is an illusion is what Sylvia Browne does... what preachers do... what scam artists do. In what way is that better? And illusions that you know are illusions is what Randi does... what optical illusions are about.

For the most part, I disagree. I don't think the intention was to suggest that skeptics lack something, but that skepticism is not the end-all and be-all of human thought. Skepticism is a tool. We have plenty of other tools as well. It is a mistake to suggest that the scientific method or skepticism is all there is to human thought. Whether or not anyone really believes this is another matter.

Moreover, skeptics don't use the scientific method to be "exalted"... they use the scientific method to find the truth. The scientific method is not my "approach to life" it's my approach to truth. Because it's the very best at finding it. Most people apparently can't tell truth from everything else. I am exalted by discovering and understanding and sharing the truth with others who wish to share it. I am not anyone's opponent, and this is not a debate to me.

Yes, exactly.

Does the OP really believe that an illusion (per dictionary definition) is better than 10,000 truths? Can he give an example? Has anyone? Is he confusing Illusion with ideals? Does he really believe all the negative stuff he said about JREF... and if so, why is he here? Why does he think it's okay to insult a group of people that way without backing it up?

I doubt it -- about the dictionary definition of illusion.

He said: JREF is contrary to the whole idea. More a deconstructor of exaltation than a provider, hellbent to drag dreams down and to denigrate their providers He confused it with the scientific method and imagined that it cannot provide exaltation, but only destroy it... and it seemed to me he sought to support that straw man with semantics.

But there is truth in that. This isn't a creative forum -- at least not this subforum. The whole thing is based on analysis, so it is not dig to call it analytic. The over-statement (or over-analysis) of the OP is the same problem many of us meet in real life -- to assume that what we see of the people around us constitute their lives. Just because folks here are analytic and pare away bad ideas does not mean that is the only way we live our lives.

To me, people need to see skepticism as something bad in order to believe that faith is good. When they get angry and they stop making sense to me, I just assume that they are protecting this belief they need to have for now.

That may be the case, but it may also be the case that we all need to hear other perspectives.

 

[blauregen]

I think that illustrates the problem very neatly. How can I correct a misperception if you will simply ignore what I say and instead put words or your own into my mouth?

I did not say that it is anybody's job to understand me or that I should have not reason to correct somebody's incorrect opinion of me.

But if someone has a perception of me and that perception is incorrect, then the error is very definitely on their side. That would seem to be beyond argument.

And I agree so far. And for the sake of argument I will happily declare that the average atheists is an above average ethical person, and in addition witty, inspiring and <insert your favorite attribute here>.

The problem I see is that this doubtlessly correct view seems mainly recognized among atheists, while a larger part of the world, even if we exclude oppressive, spiteful and mean believers, seems to have a different impression of atheists.

Is it in this case helpful that you are right?

Indeed he is actively reinforcing the mis-perception. For example his last sentence seems to imply that "the new atheists" are evincing a position of absolute certainty.

Do you mean this sentence?

On the one hand, it is obvious that the political prospects of the New Atheism are slight. People see a contradiction in its tone of certainty. Contemptuous of the faith of others, its proponents never doubt their own belief.

That's interresting. I read it as an attempt to convey 'peoples' impression, not as an attempt to assert a statement. The leading 'People see...' and the following 'I hear this protest dozens of times' seems to support this reading.

Oh and by the way, you did not respond to the other part of my post. Do you now accept that their is no taboo in this forum against suggesting that religion may provide benefits?

No, but I don't expect you to share this notion.

 

[Robin]

Let me change one or two words to clarify Kant's Categorical Imperativ:

1. Act only from a maxim that you can at the same time want to become a universal law.
2. Act so that you always treat others as an end, and never merely (!) as a means to an end.

Man is always to be regarded as a subject, an end in itself. Man may never be regarded just as an object of your action, as a means to an end.

It is therefore morally unacceptable to have sex with a comatose person to satisfy your libido, because you reduce this person to a mere object. This judgment is valid even if no harm is caused at all.

H.

From your description it seems as though she is very much the subject of his attentions.

What would be the difference from another nurse who satisfied his monetary needs rather than his sexual needs, in other words who accepted a salary for looking after her? Would that person be equally blameworthy? What would be the difference?

What about if I take a taxi, but really do not care which particular driver takes me? Am I therefore as blameworthy as the male nurse in your example?

Can you answer my previous question and give an example of right behaviour under your rule?

And given that your position now rests on a hasty rewording of a factually disputed Wikipedia article with no citations, can you give any evidence that Kant ever said this nonsense in the first place?

 

[Robin]

Is it in this case helpful that you are right?

Of course.

Do you mean this sentence?

No, I said the last sentence, which would be this one:

Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.

Since he is distinguishing himself here from the "new atheists" the implication is that they don't think there is a chance that they could be wrong.

No, but I don't expect you to share this notion.

So you think there is a taboo here against arguing that religion has provided benefits, even though I and others have spent a good deal of time arguing here that religion has provided benefits?

What, exactly, is your opinion based on????

 

[articulett]

Another notion, I'm sure we won't share is that you, like the wired article, are fostering a stereotype with the idea that you are "softening a divide". I don't think you've read enough of this forum to come to all the opinions you proffer... I think you came with the same bias as the wired article and sought to prove it true to yourself. You insulted a forum and me and others and then claimed it was because you said the r-word and that is a "taboo". We have no taboos here... that is a strawman you are using to avoid examining your actual words that inspired the reaction you receive.

I would never go to a forum and proffer my stereotyped view of the group and then become offended and blame them when they didn't take it well! Your posts do that from my personal perspective. JREF destroys dreams and exaltation?? Excuse you? You want us to respect your advice and opinion (which you apparently can't tell from a fact..). but you've hardly read or know anybody and you've insulted the group and individuals. That's socially bizarre in my book... not a person I'd take social advice from. I tend to model my behavior after people I admire... not people--who (to me)-- are seeing things that aren't there-- or who don't seem socially adept or aware of themselves to me. Why would I model myself after someone who sounds like they have a glaring bias they are unaware of?

You insulted JREF and Randi and others... people I think communicate much better than you... people whom you should be taken lessons from in my opinion... not offering lessons to. There is not a "better" way to be an atheist. You are free to worry about your image and feel whatever you want about religion or be offended when people call it a delusion... that doesn't stop others from finding that way namby-pamby or apologetic or useless or just "not for them". Don't you get that? We all have different goals and you have no special knowledge on furthering these goals from what I can tell. You aren't a gifted communicator or facilitator of unbiased discourse. Don't you see that most people aren't seeing you as the diplomatic middle-of-the-road person you imagine yourself? Nor are most people seeing skeptics, atheists, me, or JREF as you've charachterized them--without evidence, I might add.

Most people know that religion isn't taboo on this forum... but that people tend to hear any critique of "faith as a means of knowledge" as an attack upon religion and religious believers... just as the "faith in faith" meme encourages them to do. Your calling this a taboo is disingenuous. Would women have gotten votes if they let others tell them they needed to be more submissive? Would gays have moved their rights forward? Blacks? Just because you'd like to further the stereotype because it is true in your head... doesn't give you special dispensation to inflict your opinion upon others.

If you want your opinions respected, you ought to let people correct your misperceptions... and perhaps admit that you inadvertently furthered a stereotype that causes atheists to have the image they have. We have repeatedly seen that it is not based on actual words or actions... moreover, I quoted your own words... they are more offensive... why do you expect us to soften our views... when you haven't yet apologized for saying something so nasty and untrue. Your strawman made people defensive... not the r-word. Your bias is what is making you see it differently from what I can tell. Quit pretending that it was your mention of religion and not your gross mischarachterization and furthering of a stereotype that made others react. You are only fooling yourself there.

Is it the black person's job to make the prejudiced person lose his prejudices by being extraordinary when the prejudiced person is the one with the real problem? I guess it depends on the goals, eh? What the heck was your goal in posting your "opinion" about how JREF destroys peoples dreams... and then insulting people when they acted as expected? Oh... and is there any evidence at all for your straw man view--or does it just "seem this way" in your head? Is there any evidence for any of your opinions? Why are these people you judge harshly supposed to care about your un-evidenced biased opinion again? Why am I supposed to care whom I offend... if these people aren't worrying about offending me? Why is the black person supposed to worry about what the prejudiced person finds offensive when he finds the prejudice itself offensive?? I don't go to forums and tell people that the stuff that they are passionate about is a dream killer... and you want us to welcome you when you do so?

 

[blauregen]

Of course.
No, I said the last sentence, which would be this one:

Since he is distinguishing himself here from the "new atheists" the implication is that they don't think there is a chance that they could be wrong.

Are you sure this isn't a non-sequitur? He is talking about his own bedrock-faith reflecting his attitude. This in itself does not imply that the 'new atheists' attitude, as described in the article reflects a negation of his faith.

So you think there is a taboo here against arguing that religion has provided benefits, even though I and others have spent a good deal of time arguing here that religion has provided benefits?

What, exactly, is your opinion based on????

The first paragrah of this wikipedia-entry and a perceived hostility from parts of the forum when this topic comes up, that seemed to indicate that people found even the idea objectionable. It is hardly conclusive, and I don't think that I can convince you if i start quote-mineing through the whole forum. It isn't worth the effort to verify it, so i don't insist on it's truthfullness. I take it as a working-hypothesis and will take care to place disclaimers to avoid being frequently accused of being a biased , double-standards-applying apologist for whatever.