Is Libertarian all right?

[Nightime]

True, her description of the award said nothing about religious nutjobbery. It was a description of general ignorance mongering that anyone could do. And even if she had added “only religious people need apply” that would not have been much better. With a better description, a lot of the problem would vanish.

I might still say that painting the Lebons as the opposites of the Nobels would be problematic, since the Nobel does not use religion as a qualifier.

However, if the desciption had been of religious nutjobbery, instead of what it was - a description of general ignorance and fear mongering that anyone is capable of - then I would not have a problem with the thread in theory.

However, I would still have a problem with the thread in practice - meaning that, when people inevitably came in with unsupported and uncited attacks, which was already ocurring, I would hope someone would call them on it. And I think that such a thread, which again, could work in theory, would in practice be a place for unsupported attacks to be accepted and applauded, and for those making them to feel assured of not being called on said attacks.

[Nightime]

I also think that people like Lib’s choice, Rob Sherman, fit the spirit of the award, even though they are not theists. Some people seem to be able to take atheism to the level of a religion.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

Nightime, I think we’re prtty close to agreement. Can we agree to the following?

1. A discussion of people whose religious beliefs lead them to nutjob actions is a legitimate discussion.
2. Shirley’s OP’s title suggested such a legitimate discussion, as did everything in it leading up to the Lebon awards.
3. The lebon awards were broadly defined in a way that served to contradict the OP’s title and implications.

I’m not convinced that Sherman would fit the spirit of such an award: I see him much more in the Making a Mountain out of a Molehill category, as opposed to the Rejecting Science In Order to Promote a Metaphysic category that I think the Lebons could more profitably deal with.

Finally, although I disagree with you on the Catholic Church’s stand on condoms – I DO think they’re being disingenuous – I think that’s great debate material, at least the topic for another thread.

Daniel

[Nightime]

1. A discussion of people whose religious beliefs lead them to nutjob actions is a legitimate discussion.

Agreed, although it should be kept in mind that in practice such a discussion could well result in unsupported attacks being accepted and applauded.

2. Shirley’s OP’s title suggested such a legitimate discussion, as did everything in it leading up to the Lebon awards.

I partly agree, in that up to the Lebon awards the OP was not offensive, but I don’t think anything about the OP suggested a serious discussion, but rather a likely uninformed session of jokes about religious nutjobs.

3. The lebon awards were broadly defined in a way that served to contradict the OP’s title and implications.

Agreed.

I’m not convinced that Sherman would fit the spirit of such an award: I see him much more in the Making a Mountain out of a Molehill category, as opposed to the Rejecting Science In Order to Promote a Metaphysic category that I think the Lebons could more profitably deal with.

I disagree. The OP did not specify that “rejecting science in order to promote a metaphysic” was required. Sherman fits in the ignorance mongering, humanity setting back category, and IMO there is a religious flavor to his actions even though he is an athiest.

However, I think that your idea of a thread about people who reject science in order to promote a metaphysical explanation would be a far better idea for a thread, which wouldn’t have the problems this one had.

Finally, although I disagree with you on the Catholic Church’s stand on condoms – I DO think they’re being disingenuous – I think that’s great debate material, at least the topic for another thread.

I don’t agree with the Catholic Church. But that is to be expected, because I’m not Catholic.

My problem was with those who were attacking strawman positions the Catholic Church does not actually hold, refusing to use cites, and getting applauded for this.

The fact is, the Catholic Church is correct in saying that condoms are not 100% effective. Abstinence is more effective.

So, while you can easily argue that they are proposing something unrealistic, you will have a much harder time arguing that they are rejecting science.

Especially since I have yet to see a cite that the Catholic Church has said “It is better to have casual sex without a condom, than with a condom.”

Once I see that cite, I will be more inclined to share your view.

[gex_gex]

Libertarian, I thought I should call this thread to your attention. It is titled Top Ten Weirdest Celebrities and quotes a list. The thread then discusses and nominates celebrities who are weird.

I’m sure you’ll want to post some non-celebrities to the thread, to remind us that not all celebrities are weird, and to prevent any discrimination against celebrities; the obvious implication being that since only celebrities can be nominated, all celebrities are weird.

[The_Great_Unwashed]

*Originally posted by gex gex *
…the obvious implication being that… all celebrities are weird.

To be fair, name me one that isn’t.