Hypothesis: the more educated you are the less likely you are to be religious - by SubJeff
Phatose on 25/1/2012 at 17:39
Well, at any rate we've been significantly sidetracked from the original purpose of the thread.
The thought occurs to me that perhaps higher educated professionals don't tend toward aggressive atheism because they're higher educated, but simply that the kind of personality that gets higher educated has a personality that tends to that intellectual aggressiveness anyway.
Perhaps the kind of person who gets seven degree is almost certainly the kind who highly values concrete knowledge, and is thus naturally going to be aggressive when dealing with those who forgo it.
scarykitties on 25/1/2012 at 18:10
Quote Posted by dethtroll
People have a tendency to, when assaulted by someone who can't be tactful about an opposing belief, get further entrenched in their own beliefs, maybe out of a defense mechanism or something
Quote Posted by dethtroll
Because here's the thing: it doesn't fucking work that way.
People don't fucking work that way, and just because you keep trying to force it doesn't make you intelligent.
Quote Posted by dethtroll
But, if my pointing out how badgering someone with your opinion might be a flawed approach is offensive...
Haha! It's ironic because of who's saying it.
Problem is that being gentle about it doesn't work, either. Most gentle nudges against Christians will be brushed off by their faith. Most debates will be "won" in their favor because it all comes to the irrefutable claim of, "you can't DISPROVE God exists, therefore he exists." So about the only thing you can do that will at least startle 'em is shake your head.
I'm all for an intelligent discussion if there's a genuine interest to understand the truth. Learning comes from an educating by someone asking questions and finding greater understanding through the answers they receive. But when it comes down to, "I believe something that there is no evidence for and will refute anything you say" versus "I have all the evidence," there really is no point of meeting in the middle. One either has to assert their position firmly and stalwartly, or it will just be ignored. Maybe it will be ignored anyway, but at least it will be ignored out of the faithful's self-defensive fault and the atheist's self-restrictive fault.
And you know what? Christians WANT atheists to be quiet. Well, atheists want Christians to be quiet as well, of course, but that's because atheists don't want the Christians to indoctrinate others into whatever wacky cult (religion) they follow while the atheists' backs are turned. The Christians, meanwhile, will say, "if you don't believe, then why don't you just be quiet and not put other people down the wrong path?" and then they will turn around and say, "Hello, little starving child. Say, have I ever told you about how Jesus equals sandwich? Let me tell you about it..."
Pyrian on 25/1/2012 at 18:17
Quote Posted by Renzatic
I'm not really arguing for or against the potential of a God.
When you claim that God is as likely as a Big Bang (a simple extrapolation of positions and velocities), I think you
are arguing for the potential thereof. Or at least, there's no important distinction.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
The whole point of my argument is that it's reasonable to assume that there is more to the universe than we currently know, and can, at this moment in time, observe.
That's hardly an assumption, that's a plain fact, and not the part of your argument I'm questioning. You go on to claim it's just as reasonable to posit a God as an absence of a God, as if absence of evidence were evidence of
presence.Quote Posted by Renzatic
Since I find it hard to believe that something can come from absolute nothing...
The fundamental problem is that's not really the scenario you're up against. The Big Bang, in its simplest theory, is merely what happens, when nothing has happened yet. The universe doesn't "come from absolute nothing" it merely "exists within absolute nothing", which no matter how you define "universe" is merely a tautology; anything that exists can be said to be "within" that which does not exist. This "absolute nothing" is merely an imaginary construct; it's the apple that's not in your hand. It doesn't really mean anything.
Quote Posted by Renzatic
And if there is something there we can't currently account for, then it's easy to assume that there's something beyond even it. And then even more beyond it.
I would say instead that it's essentially meaningless. We place guesses into the unknowable void - and for some reason we make those guesses look, act, and
think like ourselves. Well, I've seen what happens when we find things beyond what we used to be able to observe, and y'know what? They don't look, act, or think like we do. In fact, for the most part, they don't look or act like anything we'd imagined. If there's something out there beyond space and time, is it going to be God? I would quite reasonably assume
not.Quote Posted by Renzatic
Eventually, you'll come to the point where it's all so absurd that any answer is likely.
No, you reach a point where any given answer is very highly
unlikely. And I don't think that's a minor distinction.
Chimpy Chompy on 25/1/2012 at 18:57
Quote Posted by scarykitties
. But when it comes down to, "I believe something that there is no evidence for and will refute anything you say" versus "I have all the evidence," there really is no point of meeting in the middle. "
But sometimes it's better to just walk away. If the person's faith doesn't drive them to cause harm then just fucking leave it.
I think that's at the core of my problems with Atheism, the need to argue down any sort of faith, ever. There's a point where the atheist argument basically comes down to "I'm offended you don't look at every facet of existence with the same cold hard rationality as me", to which a quite valid answer is "I don't care" and then carrying on believing.
Actually I don't mean to assume to much about you in particular. Just using this as a launching point. What I'm getting at is, I'd rather save the hostile approach for battles linked to specific matters of social concern (like, muppets trying to get creationism into science textbooks).
june gloom on 25/1/2012 at 18:58
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Haha! It's ironic because of who's saying it.
Problem is that being gentle about it doesn't work, either. Most gentle nudges against Christians will be brushed off by their faith. Most debates will be "won" in their favor because it all comes to the irrefutable claim of, "you can't DISPROVE God exists, therefore he exists." So about the only thing you can do that will at least startle 'em is shake your head.
I'm all for an intelligent discussion if there's a genuine interest to understand the truth. Learning comes from an educating by someone asking questions and finding greater understanding through the answers they receive. But when it comes down to, "I believe something that there is no evidence for and will refute anything you say" versus "I have all the evidence," there really is no point of meeting in the middle. One either has to assert their position firmly and stalwartly, or it will just be ignored. Maybe it will be ignored anyway, but at least it will be ignored out of the faithful's self-defensive fault and the atheist's self-restrictive fault.
And you know what? Christians WANT atheists to be quiet. Well, atheists want Christians to be quiet as well, of course, but that's because atheists don't want the Christians to indoctrinate others into whatever wacky cult (religion) they follow while the atheists' backs are turned. The Christians, meanwhile, will say, "if you don't believe, then why don't you just be quiet and not put other people down the wrong path?" and then they will turn around and say, "Hello, little starving child. Say, have I ever told you about how Jesus equals sandwich? Let me tell you about it..."
I want
both of them to be quiet. And that includes you, Mr. "I think I'm clever because I added an R to someone's name."
Seriously, you say you're all for intelligent discussion, and this post of yours might've gone somewhere (actually, on second read, no it wouldn't have, because you spectacularly missed/proved my point) if you hadn't started it with your OH-SO-FUCKING-WITTY "dethtroll" nonsense. I get it: you don't like me. What are you going to do, send me another PM about how you were bullied in high school and that's why my opinion doesn't matter and that you reported me to the mods because I was a meanie? Fuck off, wanker.
scarykitties on 25/1/2012 at 20:17
Quote Posted by dethtroll
Seriously, you say you're all for intelligent discussion, and this post of yours might've gone somewhere (actually, on second read, no it wouldn't have, because you spectacularly missed/proved my point)...
Oh, I didn't miss your point. Your point was that Atheists should take the nice route toward religious debate. I explained why I believe that doesn't work in the long run.
Quote Posted by dethtroll
What are you going to do, send me another PM about how you were bullied in high school and that's why my opinion doesn't matter and that you reported me to the mods because I was a meanie? Fuck off, wanker.
Hm. Did that happen? I don't recall that. Must have been a while ago. I tend to forget random people I meet pretty quickly. I just didn't like you because I noticed your mouth all over everyone's asshole so you could gobble up any shit said about someone else. I was just tired or watching you crawl around like the human centipede.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
But sometimes it's better to just walk away. If the person's faith doesn't drive them to cause harm then just fucking leave it.
Except that religious ignorance self-propagates. Walking away just allows that person to spread incorrectness on to others. It's not like someone misunderstanding economics, evolution, etc. where you can explain or debate with them and both may walk away understanding more than they knew before. It's a mental disease that wants to infect someone else.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I think that's at the core of my problems with Atheism, the need to argue down any sort of faith, ever. There's a point where the atheist argument basically comes down to "I'm offended you don't look at every facet of existence with the same cold hard rationality as me", to which a quite valid answer is "I don't care" and then carrying on believing.
That's just willful ignorance, and yes, there's no fix for that.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
What I'm getting at is, I'd rather save the hostile approach for battles linked to specific matters of social concern (like,
muppets trying to get creationism into science textbooks).
Huh. Is that a real thing?
june gloom on 25/1/2012 at 20:27
Quote Posted by scarykitties
Hm. Did that happen? I don't recall that. Must have been a while ago. I tend to forget random people I meet pretty quickly. I just didn't like you because I noticed your mouth all over everyone's asshole so you could gobble up any shit said about someone else. I was just tired or watching you crawl around like the human centipede.
Inline Image:
http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t185/dethtoll/OldSpiceguyneverfails.gifChimpy Chompy on 25/1/2012 at 20:30
Quote:
That's just willful ignorance, and yes, there's no fix for that.
Ignorance of what exactly? And why does it need fixing?
I'm not sure what confused you about the last line, unless it was the word muppets, which is british slang for "silly people".
scarykitties on 25/1/2012 at 20:54
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
Ignorance of what exactly? And why does it need fixing?
In the sense of someone saying, "You should look at this evidence," and you saying, "No thanks" and carrying on believing. That's willful ignorance of whatever topic it's applied to. It needs fixing because that attitude is contrary to mental growth.
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I'm not sure what confused you about the last line, unless it was the word muppets, which is british slang for "silly people".
Oh, heh. I thought you were saying that Jim Henson's Muppets were being used to educate children in Creationism.
Nicker on 25/1/2012 at 23:56
Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy
I don't suppose we could get through this without point-for-pointing individual sentences?
I wish there was but from my experience as a reluctantly reformed theist, what finally broke through for me was the consistent and repeated dismantling of my rationalizations - being chased through my maze of excuses and logical fallacies until I hit a dead end. Actually I had to hit that same dead end many times before I relented. Stubborn or stupid - your pick.
While what dethtoll says is also true, you won't change someone by attacking them emotionally, they won't even consider change if their chicanery is indulged. Perhaps this isn't the forum for it but it's not the forum for the repetition of failed theist justifications and diversions either. Education works, wherever you get it.
