Or even if such a thing as objective truth exists about the larger questions, and it's mostly perceived truth, to a greater or lesser degree. IOW, interpretations.
"But if we get into the problem of "objective observer" we can open a whole new can of worms in the process of what we as individuals accept as the evidence for our individual conclusion.
That is why it is so important to stay open to evidence and reasoning while at the same time not treating those that come to a different conclusion as inferior."
Agree.
I've now read this entire thread. Wow, there are a lot of misunderstandings, assumptions, and miscommunications throughout it. Still, I find it a very interesting read.
From your OP:
"Now this is not true of all atheist and I am not saying religious people have it right either because both seem for the most part demonstrate often a lack of full study and consideration. It just seems so intellectually lazy to throw out either perspective without careful consideration and respect for the other. Then again it is hard to do that when both seem dead set on destroying the other."
Funny how Science was once Religion's whipping boy, feeling threatened by it, and gradually the tables turned. I ascribe this largely to humans' unfortunate strong tendency to polarize (over, virtually, everything).
My feeling is both Science and Religion are and have been trying to understand and explain the biggest questions we humans have about this universe, or universes, with different types of thinking. Neither need be at war with one another, or threatened by the other.
If the Big Bang Theory is correct, I have no problem with anyone calling whatever energy was behind it God, and perhaps that's what Religion was trying to express all along, imperfectly understanding and interpreting it, but got lost amidst its dogma.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"Or even if such a thing as objective truth exists about the larger questions, and it's mostly perceived truth, to a greater or lesser degree. IOW, interpretations."
I think there is an objective truth, I call it facts or data. The interpretations and conclusions we derive from that is the perceived truth and that makes it difficult, maybe impossible, for us to look at things with perfect objectivity. Which is why we have to be open to contrasting interpretations and based off our values decide which is the most accurate as best we can.
"I've now read this entire thread. Wow, there are a lot of misunderstandings, assumptions, and miscommunications throughout it. Still, I find it a very interesting read."
That was bound to happen. the title I picked was inflammatory to catch interest. I was hoping my reasoning would be clear enough in my OP. Also I am challenging both the dogmas of both hard line religious thinkers and hard lined atheist thinkers. Both have a tendency to react strongly when you suggest their information is inconclusive. So far it seems the atheist have been for more aggressive and less rational than anyone else in this particular discussion. The secular philistines I call them. I find this to be the most hypocritical stance, feigning objectivity when they are completely concluded about the answer.
"... strong tendency to polarize "
That is a big part of it. confirmation bias often causes this polarization. Not taking contrasting interpretations seriously leads one to become arrogant. It was for the last few hundred years the religious that did this to science as you point out. Now it seems the tables are flipped but the same thing is happening. This was pretty well demonstrated by kazak, he only seems to read from scientist that are confirming his conclusion and anyone that disagrees he calls "charlatans". As I pointed out to him that makes him the embodiment of confirmation bias.
Ran out of room now. I agree with the rest.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"I think there is an objective truth, I call it facts or data."
There may or may not be. If objective truth, or facts and data, are based on the results of tests run by individuals (and we know this is true), how do we know, beyond all question or doubt, that the "facts and data" we've collected is accurate and "truthful," and not skewed -- to whatever degree -- by the "objective observer"?
This is uncomfortable, I realise. To everyone. As humans we *want* to have things be solid and reliable, for there to at least be some things we can rely on as immutable truths. I don't, can't, exclude myself from this desire; I have it as much as anyone else does.
"That was bound to happen. the title I picked was inflammatory to catch interest."
I have to wonder what course this conversation would have taken had you not written such an inflammatory title for it, had you not called those with whom you disagree fools, and intellectually lazy. Those are pejoratives, and you have to know that. You also had to expect, as a result, some would naturally be defensive as a result.
Were you looking for an incendiary reaction, or actual discussion? My preference is for the latter.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"I have to wonder..."
If I had not picked a title that would not be inflaming the discussion would have likely slipped into obscurity even before anyone participated. It was necessary to get people interested in even looking. I would not say that I was calling those I disagree with fools; I was calling anyone that makes a conclusive statement on something inconclusive is being lazy. I think that is as accurate description that can be given for such a thing. But I can see how it looks because I was somewhat 'challenging' to begin with. But as I said that was intentional.
I did expect defensiveness from some, but also looking for reasonable discussion and disagreement with those like you. So the readers can see the difference. I think this discussion is much more respectful then what I was having with kazak, because that person as far as I can see is far to 'against' the idea of a creator to be objective. Their reaction has been emotional and irrational at times.
"Were you looking for an incendiary reaction, or actual discussion? My preference is for the latter."
So, I guess, both is the correct answer. the actual discussion is ones like this. That even though we disagree we are respectful and not pompous superior jerks thinking we know the answer and that it is appropriate to mock other's beliefs. The incendiary reaction was to contrast conversations like ours. I hope the audience (if there is any) reading can see the difference. My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-thiest. It is one thing to not believe in a god it is another to be against the concept wholesale, and paradoxical too. If they do not believe in god why do they care that other people do, especially since they know it is inconclusive at best.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"If I had not picked a title that would not be inflaming the discussion would have likely slipped into obscurity even before anyone participated. It was necessary to get people interested in even looking. I would not say that I was calling those I disagree with fools; I was calling anyone that makes a conclusive statement on something inconclusive is being lazy."
Okay, you start out saying if you hadn't chosen an inflammatory title, this thread would "most likely have slipped into obscurity," but then go on to say it was necessary (i.e., that it *would have* slipped into obscurity, not most likely have done so).
No way to go back in time and rewrite it, so neither of us definitively know the answer, but ...
It's long been my experience that when one starts out using pejoratives aimed at others, those others are predictably going to respond negatively. Which is exactly what happened. If your intention was to invite those people to consider rethinking their positions, your approach was ineffective.
You and I are largely in agreement, so I didn't feel attacked by your OP, which is why our discussion was and remained respectful -- a discussion, rather than devolving into an argument.
I invite you to consider, in the future, being more respectful yourself towards those you're trying to communicate with, particularly if your point is to invite them to consider being more respectful towards others. That's my only point.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
I get what you are saying but as I see it, sometimes, when you are unknown the provocation of a pejorative is necessary to get even the slightest bit of attention. Yes the result can be negative at first but through reasonable discourse the nature of the conversation can change to a discussion instead of an argument, especially if the initial provocateur (in this case me) goes on to explain in a reasonable and respectful manner what was meant by the pejorative in the first place. I felt like I did that in the opening post, I thought was sufficient in explaining what was meant by the provocative title; perhaps I am mistaken in that.
I also felt I was relatively respectful to nearly all groups of thinking in that opening statement. The only bad actors I singled out and showed disdain for (disrespected) were hypocrites that think they are inherently superior for their belief alone and not for their reasoning. Those I was a actually trying to argue with, like Kazak and stratego; where as I was looking for discussion with more reasonable posters like yourself. I think kazak and stratego proved my point about hypocrisy and superiority, and you prove my point about reasonable discourse. So all in all I think I am getting the results I was looking for.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"but as I see it, sometimes, when you are unknown the provocation of a pejorative is necessary to get even the slightest bit of attention."
I disagree with that. In general, as it opposes my years of experience plus knowledge of human nature, and even more so when what you're calling for is tolerance and respect for the opinions or conclusions of others.
Title aside, in your OP you called those who have concluded or think differently than you (and I) do -- the same people your goal was to reach -- intellectually dishonest, intellectually lazy, naive, and secular philistines.
How effective do you think you were getting people such as Kazak and Stratego to hear you? IMO, not at all.
I *could* call you a hypocrite for asking for respect towards others, while at the same time expressing disdain/disrespect towards others who don't agree with you. I choose to not, and instead choose understanding and finding common ground (not difficult, as we already share common ground).
If you look back on the posts in this thread, as I recall it, the only exchanges that were respectful and reasonable were between you and me. That's because I did not feel attacked. But you weren't trying to reach out to people like me. Your stated goal was to reach out to people such as Kazak and Stratego.
Yet even with Kazak, he or she and I have managed to have a reasonable exchange. Why? Because neither of us were attacking the other.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"How effective do you think you were getting people such as Kazak and Stratego to hear you? IMO, not at all."
Ah but my goal is not for them to hear me. There is no hearing for them except by those that share their view. Confirmation Bias. My goal was for them to reveal how closed minded they really are, so that others can see which type of approach to belief and tolerance is reasonably respectful.
And it is not about those that disagree with me. It is about those that hypocritical express conclusive conclusions when there is no conclusive evidence, especially for those that demand proof for the existence of god (is this not unforgivably hypocritical).
"Your stated goal was to reach out to people such as Kazak and Stratego."
No my stated goal was for people to NOT be like kazak and Stratego (at least specifically on this particular topic), not reach people like them.
"Yet even with Kazak, he or she and I have managed to have a reasonable exchange. Why? Because neither of us were attacking the other."
If you looked through my conversation with kazak would should have seen a perfect demonstration of the type of hypocrisy I was speaking out against in my OP. Look at the manner in which he attributed belief to me just because I wanted to give beliefs a fair hearing and not outcast the thought without good reason. He even called Schroeder a "charlatan" while praising the likes of Krauss and Carroll ignoring that Schroeder credential and credibility are very similar to those 2. I did not perform such 'worship' like praise of Schroeder I simply stated he made some compelling points. There is a difference as I see it. Maybe you don't or maybe I am seeing a difference where there is none. Hard to tell. Though I used words like hypocrite and intellectually lazy (foolish), I would have thought more 'objective' thinkers would not have such thin skin to become defensive over that. Which, again, as you demonstrate is fully possible.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
You stated this as your goal: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-thiest." Those who are not like Kazak or Straego, on this particular topic, were not those you were trying to reach out to, else you'd have had no disagreement with them.
I have no argument with what you were in disagreement on, only your method of delivery, which alienated the very people you were trying to appeal to.
*I* understood perfectly well what you were saying and, as I said, am largely if not totally in agreement with you. But your goal was not to reach out to people such as me, which would be preaching to the choir.
Again, it's less a matter of being thin-skinned than it is being attacked right out of the shoot, and then expecting those you attacked to be at open-minded to what you're saying. You and I, at least fundamentally, have no argument; you did not condescend to or insult *me*, because I don't identify with the group or groups your intention was to address. But you did to others.
If what you wish is to engender respect, be the example you wish to see, give the respect you're asking for, however much you may disagree with it.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"You stated this as your goal: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-thiest." Those who are not like Kazak or Straego, on this particular topic, were not those you were trying to reach out to, else you'd have had no disagreement with them."
I can see how this wording is confusing; but I suppose I broke the words apart poorly. I was trying to reach both atheist, deist and theist into being more respectful and not arrogant toward each other. I singled out anti-theist specifically because they were not the group I was trying to reach. Mostly because their very name says they are against theist, ergo do not respect their belief. Which is exactly what kazak and stratego demonstrated. I guess in a way I was disrespectful toward them because I find nothing to respect about their hypocritical approach, and in my tone there was no hiding this. It is not because of WHAT they believe that I disrespect them but their approach to what they believe versus what others believe.
"Again, it's less a matter of being thin-skinned than it is being attacked right out of the shoot, and then expecting those you attacked to be at open-minded to what you're saying."
Again though, the problem is in the very way they define themselves; their very identity of belief is an immediate attack on theism. Which is why it is a practice that is not worthy of respect as I see. They need a name change and more tact. This is a form of atheism that is anti-theist. Not only do they not believe in god, they are specifically against the belief in god. That as I see it by default is an intolerant practice.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"I disagree with that. In general, as it opposes my years of experience plus knowledge of human nature, and even more so when what you're calling for is tolerance and respect for the opinions or conclusions of others."
Well your knowledge and years of experience are far different from mine. My experience of human nature is that typically they practice ideology that leads them to either laziness or full on maliciousness.
And I am more calling for reasonable tolerance and respect. Now reasonable is a tricky word to define in this sense. But to give an example related to this topic: Say you have a christian that goes to church and reads their bible. when pressed as to why they believe in the bible or when someone like kazak demands evidence not only do they not have well reasoned answers but they themselves become defensive and hostile, I would think of this as a fundamental practice of religion. Now in this case this christian did not put reasonable thought into their belief and therefore are hypocrites for ever saying they "know god is real". Now say you have a christian that not only has good answers to why they believe and practice but also acknowledge that they are taking a leap of faith and not become defensive when called out on this. I would say the latter has earned reasonable respect. Same with the atheist that states "I do not believe there is a god" because of the lack of conclusive evidence to convince them but they acknowledge they could be wrong and not demand proof of existence to "prove god is real". I find this very concept of prove god is real to be foolish all together. This is like asking someone to prove they believe what they believe. Or like me saying "prove to me you believe in god". How does one even answer that question other than: "well, I believe it". It puts the christian in a position to give a stupid answer because the initial 'question' was designed to force that answer.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"Well your knowledge and years of experience are far different from mine. My experience of human nature is that typically they practice ideology that leads them to either laziness or full on maliciousness. "
Really? You've found that attacking others with pejoratives has resulted in anything other than defensiveness, due to feeling attacked, and that any meaningful discussion or exchange of ideas has been the result? I find that difficult to believe.
"And I am more calling for reasonable tolerance and respect."
If that is truly what you're calling for, then extend it to others, and yes, that includes those you're criticising. I feel like you're missing the forest for the trees here. Look at the BIG picture here, not simply your original thesis. Give respect if you want to receive it in return, that's it boiled down to its most simple terms. If you're unwilling to do that, expect to receive what you've received here, missing the opportunity to effectively communicate with those you wish to communicate with, which is *not* those who are like me.
Christian, Judoist, Buddhist, whatever, at the end it's all the same except for the details, and respect is, in the end, respect, be that respect for atheists or agnostics.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"Really? You've found that attacking others with pejoratives has resulted in anything other than defensiveness, due to feeling attacked, and that any meaningful discussion or exchange of ideas has been the result? I find that difficult to believe."
No, what I have found is that without really stunning people out of their ideologies by making them offended or uncomfortable, "poking their abstractions", then often they will continue to stay in their ideology.
"Christian, Judoist, Buddhist, whatever, at the end it's all the same except for the details, and respect is, in the end, respect, be that respect for atheists or agnostics."
As I said in my other comment to you; there is a difference between being atheist, christian, Buddhist, etc and being specifically against another's belief system. This is like defining oneself as anti-christian, anti-Buddhist, anti-atheist. They are not pushing for their beliefs they are rallying against other people for their beliefs. This is a very distinct difference.
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"No, what I have found is that without really stunning people out of their ideologies by making them offended or uncomfortable, "poking their abstractions", then often they will continue to stay in their ideology."
And you've seen here, by your approach, is what? Has anyone in your stated goal group done anything except become (justifiably) offended? Have you seen anyone within the same group of people do anything except defend their position? No? Yeah, me either. I wonder why that is.
Put aside your position (belief in god, non-belief in god, or whatever) -- or anyone else's -- for the moment, and boil it down to normal human reactions on any given topic. You want to reach out to your goal audience and have them possibly reconsider their position and actions? You can continue on this path, which is demonstrably ineffective, OR you could consider another, more effective tact. The choice is yours. The question is WHAT are you going to choose? Continued strife and a lack of communicate, or the increased chances of your point(s) being considered?
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
let me ask you this; since you are convinced that the anti-theist are my goal audience even though I have stated multiple times are the antithesis of my argument:
How can someone that is against the beliefs of someone else (anti-whatever) ever demonstrate tolerance and/or respect towards whatever they are specifically against?
How are they justifiably offended when there very identity is designed to offend others?
How will anyone ever reconsider their ideology when they assume anyone that does not hold that ideology are idiots?
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
This is what you stated: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-thiest."
If your target audience wasn't atheists, which is what your OP was about, then who was? If it was anyone else, you hardly made that clear, not only in your OP but throughout this thread.
"How can someone that is against the beliefs of someone else (anti-whatever) ever demonstrate tolerance and/or respect towards whatever they are specifically against?
How are they justifiably offended when there very identity is designed to offend others?
How will anyone ever reconsider their ideology when they assume anyone that does not hold that ideology are idiots?"
I would ask you these same questions. You appear to be unaware that you're doing to others what you're asking those people to not to do a different group of people. That doesn't work; same behavior, targeted against a different group of people, for different specific reasons.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"This is what you stated: "My goal is to try to get people to be more respectful and not be arrogant. And I see a lot of arrogance on the part of anti-thiest.""
Did you miss this reply: "I can see how this wording is confusing; but I suppose I broke the words apart poorly. I was trying to reach both atheist, deist and theist into being more respectful and not arrogant toward each other. I singled out anti-theist specifically because they were not the group I was trying to reach. Mostly because their very name says they are against theist, ergo do not respect their belief. Which is exactly what kazak and stratego demonstrated. I guess in a way I was disrespectful toward them because I find nothing to respect about their hypocritical approach, and in my tone there was no hiding this. It is not because of WHAT they believe that I disrespect them but their approach to what they believe versus what others believe. "
" You appear to be unaware that you're doing to others what you're asking those people to not to do a different group of people. "
You are wrong, sir. I am going after peoples attitudes and behavior not their beliefs. to the beliefs I am respectful (reasonably at least) to the approach I am not. I am stating be respectful to the belief but if someone is actively against (ie trying to destroy you) you have no reason to tolerate that.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
Someone clearly has a crush on me. :) Congratulations on demonstrating nothing that everybody didn't already know, derp. A real maverick.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
Not really a crush. I used you for my purposes and now i have no further use for you. So please stop texting me I have moved on you should too. This is getting sad.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
If you truly don't believe in a theistic God, as you've claimed several times throughout this thread (which I don't believe for a second), then why do you display so many common theist behaviors? It's all about you, all about your purposes. The thinly veiled entire purpose of theism, God thinks exactly as I do, you should get in line with God (and thereby conveniently do exactly as I think you should). This isn't "getting" sad, this started sad.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
Right because i display even the slightest empathy and can try to assume the thought of a person that believes in a theistic god means by default I do actually believe. That does not mean I believe it just means you are so narcissistic and lacking in empathy you can't even try to be reasonable towards others of different beliefs. I really do not think I am the one with a problem here.
Also I do not necessary believe there is not a god I just don't really believe there is. It is a spectrum not a definite belief; which is why I am open to reason and you are not.
"It's all about you, all about your purposes."
No my purpose was to prove people that are anti-anything, as in your case anti-theist, are not capable of being objective and rational. And you perfectly displayed that. I do not think "God" would care very much about my purpose; nor do I particular care about "his".
"God thinks exactly as I do, you should get in line with God (and thereby conveniently do exactly as I think you should)."
I do not think I ever came even close to suggesting something like this. You have a rather bizarre view of theistic belief. I can only wonder at what religion or religious person has done to hurt you.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
It's absolutely amazing you keep saying the same things I hear theists say to defend their untenable views. "I can't imagine what religion has done to you to harden your heart." "Your disdain for God prevents you from being objective." "Secular philistines, yada yada." It's uncanny!
You're a fraud. Your totally transparent "nuclear physicist" is a fraud. You don't even know the most interesting and compelling names in the field of cosmology. You speak in broken English, but you "understand" cosmology. You're totally out of your league. Go away. Come back once you've found your way out of your small minded myopia (won't happen).
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
Back to this again. I stated Krauss and Hawking as names I have specifically read. These are also some of the names you gave. So I didn't read all the same ones you claimed to have read. That means nothing. I only didn't hear of 2 of them and you said yourself, they were 'rising names' which suggest it is likely that I would not have heard of them unless I was recently following it closely. This proves nothing and is an ad hominem.
"You're a fraud."
Why because I actually try not to make up my mind about an inconclusive topic? yeah real fraud there.
"Your totally transparent "nuclear physicist" is a fraud."
Gerald Schroeder "chroeder received his BSc in 1959, his MSc in 1961, and his PhD in nuclear physics and earth and planetary sciences in 1965, from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT).[2] He worked five years on the staff of the MIT physics department. He was a member of the United States Atomic Energy Commission.[3]" Yup what a fraud. He managed a highly successful career for 50 years in nuclear physics by being a fraud. I guess when you are proved to be a loon with highly emotional beliefs you have to start attacking everyone's character because you have no valid argument and you know it. Maybe you have read many books on physics but I would suggest you take some time and read a little on what a fallacy is and what ideologies are.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
Your garbage is exposed. Go away.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
I think your garbage was exposed long ago. But the longer you stay here stinking the more people will smell it, hopefully (unless they are as ideologically blind as you).
"Go away."
Lol why should I, it is my topic? What a ridiculous thing to say. This is like a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum. Please keep going, I could not have made up a more perfect example of the type of irrational pseudo-intellectuals that believe themselves superior.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
Take your pseudoscience to the religion board where I will expose you there, you maddening bore.
reply
share
mxpowers43 (367)
7 years ago
"Take your pseudoscience to the religion board where I will expose you there, you maddening bore."
Ah more ad homenims and if I am such a "bore" and maddening so, why do you keep replying.
And if you failed to expose me here in a general discussion what makes you think moving to a different board would make any difference?
this is still funny though because you sound like a child right now.
reply
share
Kazak (2025)
7 years ago
If the Big Bang Theory is correct, I have no problem with anyone calling whatever energy was behind it God, and perhaps that's what Religion was trying to express all along, imperfectly understanding and interpreting it, but got lost amidst its dogma.
I don't disagree. The problem arises when deliberate efforts persist to conflate this responsible deistic position with a dangerous and irresponsible theistic position, for the purposes of control and domination. THAT is why atheists seem unpleasant at times, because allowing for the responsible deistic position leaves the door cracked open for dubious agendas to come rushing through, which they can reliably be counted on to do every single time. If an energy, which we'll call god (little g) initiated the big bang, then this is clearly not a God (big G) who answers prayers, helps wide receivers catch touchdowns, is concerned with every single little aspect of our lives, and is as worthy of worship as any other energy is (light for instance). In short, an energy at the origin ain't Yahweh. mxpowers' obfuscation coming in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...
reply
share
Catbookss (13664)
7 years ago
"The problem arises when deliberate efforts persist to conflate this responsible deistic position with a dangerous and irresponsible theistic position, for the purposes of control and domination. THAT is why atheists seem unpleasant at times, because allowing for the responsible deistic position leaves the door cracked open for dubious agendas to come rushing through, which they can reliably be counted on to do every single time."
This problem arises due to an unfortunate tendency in human nature, which really isn't particularly related to deitism or non-deietism. The desire to control and dominate isn't specific to religion, and so I feel no threat from it, specific to religion.
I also don't necessarily think there's a difference between a big G god or a little g god, as you understand it. I think there's still a LOT that we don't know or understand, and we label such things as "supernatural," when most likely they are natural, but we simply don't yet understand these things.
BTW, in case you were wondering, no, I don't think that god (upper or lower case) has much -- IF anything -- to do with team A winning over team B, be that sports or religious wars.
reply
share