I am mystified.
Why in the BLUE FUCK did some people miss the part of the OP’s sentiment that was pissed at people who spout OPINIONS when they are PROUD they know NOTHING about the subject in question?! That seems to be the key, and all of this ridiculous arguing THAT COMPLETELY MISSED THE KEY could have been avoided. I don’t know…jeez.
Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.
If you don’t know, because you don’t care, then don’t talk as if you do know. I think that’s what this boils down to. And acting as if your non-caring actually qualifies you to talk as if you do know about the subject at hand. The OP seemed very simple, and logical to me. From Gobear in the OP:
This is not about who said what. It’s about people talking about what they proudly do not know. Just my 2 cents.
gobear
said many things that really were summarized by
Completely disagree.
I don’t go around insulting others religious beliefs, and in fact know that many people find very real strength in their faith. But I’m a scientific man and the metaphysical views of others don’t change my opinion of what’s real.
My not studying the nuances of various religions to your satisfaction hardly makes me “backwards,” and I for one don’t appreciate the insult.
Refusing to study an area of human knowledge out of mere prejudice is fucking backward. Be as insulted as you please.
I don’t believe in any religion whatsoever. But when I argue against Christianity, I argue from knowledge, not bashing a strawman. Too many times on the boards I’ve seen ignorant people who embarrass the cause of atheism by making dumbass refutations that show they do not understand the tenets of the religion they are attacking.
I may be a heathen, but I won’t be an ignorant one. YMMV.
Religion is important. Whether you pertain to one or not. It affects all of us. It affects our history, and many countries, including the US, were founded because OF religion. So perhaps it would be wise to learn about it.
I’d say it is the same thing a fundamentalist says. I’m right because I say so, and I refuse to learn about anything which could, God forbid (no pun intended) suggest otherwise. I’m not saying the two people quoted would change their mind. But it is the same thing fundamentalist religious folk do. Out of sight, out of mind. I’m going to believe what I want to, and be proud of the fact that I refuse to learn about those who disagree.
Bill, I approve wholeheartedly of science and the understanding it brings us of the universe in which we live. And I’ve never had the slightest problem in reconciling it and my belief in God. I suspect our epistemologies differ in only slight ways, other than my belief in revelation, which I feel confident you’d reject as a valid mechanism for obtaining knowledge.
However, I see two problems with this discussion:
-
Science in general answers the question “how” and faith-based systems tend to get into trouble when they stray into that forum. It is not competent to address the question “why” – and mankind generally wants that answer too. (“Randomness” is not an answer; it’s an abdication of willingness to answer, the next plane up from the attitude castigated by the OP – “I not only don’t know but don’t want to know.”)
-
Regardless of whether there is any objective referent for any given belief, it is held firmly and strongly influences the behavior of the person holding it. Beagledave, for example, is a kindly and thoughtful man whose stance on abortion is shaped strongly by the religious conviction that the unborn fetus is in fact a human being with all the rights appertaining to one. Whether or not you agree with him, if you should participate in a discussion on abortion in which he is involved, you must allow for the fact that this is his firm belief. And I’ve already mentioned the folks who decide to refute my own beliefs by arguing against a strawman they set up and conceive to be my beliefs.
If there is in fact a God who has a bug up His ass about men who take other things up theirs, then gobear has a significant problem to face. On the other hand, if the God whom Jesus Christ preached is the real one, as I believe, then the folks who are slamming gobear for his sexuality on the basis of the Bible conceived as a rulebook are the ones with a problem on their hands. And if any of the hundreds of other options on the question, including the nullset option of atheism, should prove to be the case, then a lot of time and effort has been wasted all over.
But religion is never irrelevant – because religious people live in the same world as you, and condition their decision-making on their beliefs. It’s a wise man who takes that into account.
Faruiza, perhaps we’re all equally mystified by the misattribution of opinions to the people quoted. I’ve looked and looked and looked and I don’t see where either lady stated any opinion whatsoever about The Pentecost, which is what they were talking about!
Polycarp, this is not and never was a debate about the Pentecostal religion. It’s completely irrelevant in either the context of this thread or the context of the linked thread.
I also never said I wished to remain forever blissfully ignorant about the background of pieces of art. In fact, I specifically stated exactly the opposite when I said that I rent the tape players that tell you about the background of certain pieces in the museums I visit. But I don’t feel I have to experience art for the same reason or the same “fun” that you do. If it gives you more pleasure knowing more about a wider range of art than I do because your knowledge of Christianity is superior to mine, well, ok. I’m a huge fan of Seurat’s “Sunday Afternoon on the Isle of La Grande Jatte” and that, as far as I know (or CARE), has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. Nor does VanGogh’s “Irises” or Monet’s “Water Lilies”. Therefore, I find the contention that one must have a deep and intense knowledge of all the finer details of Christianity to appreciate art to be absurd (and a bit presumptuous).
With regard to our State’s upcoming elections, I make it a point to read as much as I possibly can on every ballot issue I’ll be voting on. I do, afterall, work for a Political Consulting Firm! Additionally, I don’t just toss those booklets that encapsulate the “pros” and “cons” to every bond issue, referendum, initiative, measure, candidate, etc., – I pour over them and discuss them with my husband in great detail before deciding how I’ll vote on everything on the ballot. I believe I’m smart enough to recognize “politicking” from the meat and bones of the issues. I don’t think I have to know how to wire a lamp in order to make a decision on which candidate appears to me to have the most fiscally sound recommendation on how to address the State’s energy concerns. If you really expect every voter to have the kind of intimate knowledge you propose in your post before they’re qualified to vote, then I respectfully submit you’re living in a dream world that I wish I could join you in.
I’m not going to bother with any of the specific questions you post about DeLay, Bauer, etc., as they, too, are completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
I don’t ignore those things that influence things I care about. I just happen to care about different things than you do.
Viva la difference!
if you don’t know i won’t tell:
<sigh> No, it’s not. Neither of those women expressed any PRIDE in their lack of knowledge about The Pentecost. Did you even READ the linked thread to understand the context? The thread was decrying the stupidity of people who don’t know what some other people deem “common knowledge”. The subject of a Pentecostal person not knowing that The Pentecost started as a Jewish holiday celebrating the harvest was brought up as a measure of said Pentecostal person’s intelligence. There were many other subjects discussed as well. As posters brought up things they thought were common knowledge, others chimed in that they either knew or didn’t know those tidbits of fact. The two quotes from the OP were merely stating that they didn’t know about the (for all we know they believe to be interesting) factoids about The Pentecost. They qualified their lack of knowledge by pointing out that they are atheists who don’t make a point of studying the finer points of specific fringe religions (though obviously not in those specific words). One of the posters followed up with a derogatory term for G-d, which, while rude and uncalled-for, hardly justifies the belief that either woman deliberately chose not to learn anything about any religion before choosing atheism.
Which is the whole point!
Yes, I did read the link. Gobear used them as examples for being proud of ignorance. I consider gobears’ OP what the topic is about. His quotes were just a reference to help explain what he was talking about. Not the whole bit of his point. That’s what I’m saying.
another worthless thought …
Trekkie : I know all about Star Trek, Spent years studying
Non Trekkie : Star Trek is fiction, Trekkie has wasted a large part of his life learning things of little use. I’m glad I am not a trekkie.
Xian Theologian : I know all about the Bible, Spent years studying
Atheist : The Bile is fiction, Xian Theologian has wasted a large part of his life learning things of little use. I am glad I am not a Xian Theologian.
Why is the non-trekkie a realist, whilst the Atheist is rude and prideful?
Shayna: Fair enough. I never intended to say that you ought to be interested in the same things as I am – just that you needed adequate information to make informed decisions (and, in an ideal situation, to appreciate what you see and hear more fully). And it would seem that you do. I appreciate your thoughtful answer, with additional details clarifying the stance you stated briefly before.
Taking, as I do, a Donne/Heidegger stance, I find the reasons why people wish to enforce their worldviews on others to be compelling reasons to learn about those worldviews and the reasons they engender. Obviously, not only does your mileage differ but we’re not even on the same highway in this regard.
And, of course, the thread was not directed at you in any way (particularly in view of the fact that you take the time to inform yourself on matters of interest or concern) – but rather at those who take a Feralwilliamesque stance.
Peace be with you.
gobear wrote
]
Oh really?
I don’t study the reading of tarot cards. Same with the different types of crystals and what magic properties they hold. My reason is purely “mere prejudice.” Does that also make me backwards? err, “fucking backwards”? Or does only the mysticism of your choice count?
You seem to have quite a chip on your shoulder there, friend.
By the way, as it turns out, I do know a fair amount about a number of religions. More than most by far. But that’s because I’m inquisitive by nature. I don’t have issue with people studying religion and I don’t have issue with people practicing it. But I do have issue with people trying to mandate it’s study under penalty of being labeled “ignorant” and “backwards”. err, “fucking backwards.”
Mandate? How? I’m pointing out that ignoring religion, dismissing it entirely, is dismissing a gigantic section of art, literature, and history.
If you don’t care, no skin off my nose.
It’s amazing that I ran into the exact same responses in my math thread–“I don’t want to learn, you can’t make meeee”
Bippy the Beardless, interesting analogy of sorts. I’d say it’s because the Bible is considered to be true by many, both today, and in the past. Noone thinks Star Trek is actually a true story. Well, noone I know, anyway, and considering that I’m a huge geek… 
I’d say that’s the difference. Also, however, I’d say that saying knowledge, regardless of the topic, is never useless. So they were both being prideful. You don’t just say knowledge is meaningless unless there’s a reason to, and going on the simple analogy, that reason would only be because of pride, or intent to hurt the other person’s feelings. I’ve spent too much time analyzing things, haven’t I?
Er. That was supposed to be… ‘You don’t just say that someone’s knowledge is meaningless…’. And also, sorry about the hijack.
Threads about simple mechanics languish and die.
Mangetout is desperate for help in his quest to learn calculus*, and isn’t getting any.
I have yet to see a single thread about Dick Gephart’s “executive order” pronouncement, or anything about John Kerry’s “I was misled” revisionism.
Posters attack the Bush administration’s “dishonesty” with the WMD thing, but ignore the erosion of the Bill of Rights.
But just let somebody start a thread about religion, and it will reach two pages in less than five hours.
Crap. I hit the <Enter> key by mistake.
All I wanted to add was the footnote.
*I’d help, but the subject dredges up bad memories.
I don’t know why I bothered.
My sentiments exactly (about my thread. hell, all my posts0
Perhaps it is not what you said, but how you said it.
I feel your pain.
Those two abominations above shouldn’t have been born.
I should stay in MPSIMS where I belong.