It’s in your own mind? Sometimes, towards some people and some things I am hostile; sometimes I am not. Claiming that I am all the time; that is hyperbole. So is claiming that I’m “spewing bullshit”, when in fact I’m either expressing my opinion or simply pointing out unpopular truths.
You don’t like that I bashed a relative of yours by implication? Well, the people he helped hurt and kill got a lot worse done to them than being bashed on a message board.
And what happens when people believe that what happens in their dream is real?
Nope (if by AWOL you mean deserting), just refuse deployment to wars of aggression (and yes, this will land them in the stockade - principle has a price)
Don’t know how he felt, me, while I can sympathise with the reasons for that particular one, I think it’s quite clear that it had very little to do with actually getting Bin Laden, and I’m certainly against it continuing. I’d have been OK with a precise surgical police action/special forces op directed specificaly at AQ outposts, and sanctions and censure of the Afghani govt.
I thought we were trying to fight ignorance, not encourage it?
Missed the edit window.
It has been said many times that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, we are entitled to call them on these claims, as I would be if I published claims that flew in the face of accepted science.
It seems though, that followers of the various sky pixies get given “get out of jail free” cards with regard to evidence and we are not allowed to ask for it.
Why should someone get an easy ride because of their beliefs?
Don’t know. But that’s not what I asked. Since I asked first, I should get an answer first, doncha think? Keep in mind that the topic here is respect and hatefulness based on a person’s belief or lack of belief. What I’ve said is that I base how I respect people on how they treat me, not on what they believe or don’t believe. Does this in me seem unreasonable?
If we’re fighting ignorance, then we shouldn’t be referring to people like Daniel Dennet as “some guy”. We owe what we know about modern cognitive science to his studies and writings. It seems to me that people (some, not all) are working from their conclusions to their premises, which — again — if we’re fighting ignorance is bass-ackwards.
Esse quam videri. You ask. You get. You reject.
We ask.
You redefine the word “evidence” to include feelings and supposition.
You provide “experts”.
You provide “experts” that reference the previous “experts”.
You provide “experts” that contradict previous “experts”.
You add up all the “experts”, the “experts” that agree with those first “experts”, and the “experts” that contradict those “experts” and think that all those “experts” together means that there must be something there to be an “expert” about.
You give us suppositions as fact(God lives “outside the universe”, God is a totally non-material being, God is an emotion, and others too numerous and vague to count) then build from these suppositions.
You give us nothing that would be acceptable as evidence in any sort of real scientific query.
We ask for more.
You give us the same.
We reject the silliness that has gone on, and yet we keep asking for evidence, and we keep the door open.
okay…
I can’t prove to you what I dreamed about last night. So you can dismiss my dreams as made-up stuff out of hand…
Just don’t be surprised if I do that to your god…
As for the respect… it seems to me that Der Trihs is under the impression that the people who believe a certain way treat him like shit, and adjusts his respect accordingly. This is a self-fulfilling prophecy if I ever saw one, but it is treating people like he himself is being treated.*
I myself usually treat people with as much respect as I would like to get, but here in the Netherlands religion is not such a hot topic as with you guys** so YMMV
but personally I didn’t try to engage you on the manner of respect… I just liked that you equated believing in god to dreaming… just as Der Trihs does
*this could also be me talking out of my ass… If I was a betting man, I would put money on this even…
**sadly, this is changing for the worse.
You got precisely the answer the question deserved - so what if my “dream state” is not a “real” state? I’m not using the assumption that it is to influence law or science or anyone else’s life. If all religious persons felt the same way; what is not provably real should be kept separate from what is, we’d be better off.
Well, you’re free to feel as smug as you like by the fact that I don’t consider Dennet particularly important, but that doesn’t magically make your God real. I didn’t need Dennet to know your argument was empty before; I don’t need him now.
Yes, everyone hates you. They’re all out to get you. Poor, poor Der Trihs. :rolleyes:
No, you’re not a monster because “you don’t suck up to their fantasy.” You’re not a monster at all, frankly. You’re just an asshole.
I really don’t give a shit what you believe. Whether you believe ME when I say that, that’s up to you.
Thought about it over the weekend; and I am retracting the comparison with Phelps and instead liked Guin’s comparison with Falwell, plus let’s add Pat Robertson and the other noisy gongs in the televangelist field as a more accurate comparison. Phelps did go one big step further in spreading his hate than DT.
Other than that, I stand by the other comments regarding DT’s hatred…it will fail to serve him well, regardless of topic and desired effect…whatever that may be.
It is not a particularly new observation that a lot of religious activity (churchgoing and associated activities) fulfills functions other than religion, such as socializing and status positioning. No reason to believe that atheism is any different - it can function a signal of self-superiority, and, for some people, the louder the signal the better. Plus, I’m sure it’s irrationally fun to organize coalitions and wave your club at that other tribe of monkeys across the river.
Funny - how do you know or measure what his desired effect is? I get accused of thesame locally, including by the local politicians who are not used to opposition since I came to town.
They can insult me all they want, but in the end they have started losing their votes I take an interest in, and there is an increasing awareness in town that they are fools, and national groups are taking notice of the political backwardsness here.
That’s gotta hurt, and whenthe only rhtetorical tool the locals have is to quote the Bible, well, it hurts to find out it doesn’t work in politics.
This is exactly the kind of shameful attempt to demonize, and demean in order to remove people who practice politics without relying on God as justification that is so sadly common.
Our politics in this country is about inclusion, on synthesizing the best ideas of everyone, without encoding this religious belief or that into law.
Is there anyone here that disagrees with that last sentence?
From the Wikipedia page on Pat Robertson:
Dt hates things regarding religion that we should all hate. Equating this with the Robertson’s actions and pronouncements makes you the asshole.
Especially since mokeys don’t cross rivers, what with the crocodiles and all.
I don’t think I said that we should encourage ignorance.
I think we’re actually agreeing here – real world example: my father-in-law is a retired Methodist minister. If I was to state to him that his beliefs are without objective proof he’d agree with me… but they are still his beliefs.
If he were claiming that laws should be made based on these subjective-only beliefs then we’d have something to argue about. His extraordinary claims would then certainly require extraordinary proof, but I can hardly argue that his beliefs aren’t his beliefs. (i.e. that they are subjectively real to him).
As it is, and as a single example, he (and other Ministers of similar mind) wrote in years past in **support **of homosexual law reform in NZ because that was about rights being extended to real human people, and he felt that extending those rights was the morally correct thing to do.
They absolutely shouldn’t – they should be judged on their actions – just as everyone should be judged. And if they are trying to influence you because the “sky pixie” says so then of course you should ask to see the evidence, and a subjective “this is what I believe” is not nearly sufficient.
I rarely drop by The Pit so I just saw this today.
I just want to say that I do disagree with his statement that, “Religion deserves to be hated.” Mocked, yes, and as often as possible - hated, no.
Extraordinary claims…you mean like the equal dignity of all humans? I’m sure there’s a formula or gene or molecule or peer-reviewed article…or maybe Randi or Penn & Teller proved it.
Don’t distort what I’m saying. The people I’m talking about don’t hate me because of anything I’ve said or done. They don’t even know I’m alive. It ***doesn’t matter ***if I’m an “asshole” or not; they don’t know or care. They care that I’m an atheist, and they hate me for that reason alone. And all other atheists, regardless of how we behave.