I dunno, from the perspective of a rationalist, a skeptic, or an atheist, belief in sky pixies, tribal thunder gods, or the IPU simply have to look a bit odd. I’ve certainly seen examples of believers expressing disbelief that non-believers can actually hold values such as ethics or hope or marital commitment. Is that not as dismissive?
As long as no one denies me a bank loan because they think my beliefs will interfere with my ability to hold a job, and as long as they do not use my belief as an ad hominem to dismiss a point, backed by cited facts and logic, that I make in a discussion, I am not harmed by their attitudes and I really cannot get too upset over them.
As to decreased tolerance on the SDMB: I suspect that there has always been a certain amount of intolerance among a few people for certain ideas–and sometimes the MB develops a pack mentality. (Whyyyy, back when we were on AOL. . . .)
I further suspect that intolerance appears to wax and wane as one’s own interests are more or less prominently featured in current debates. There has only been rather low-grade bashing of Creationists over the last month or so, while I can remember times when a third of the GD first page were on that topic. Similarly, we made it through Black History Month and a Sturm Front invasion in the last couple of months with (usually) fewer than three racism threads at a time in the center. The same is true for number of other hot button items. When things do get heated, then more people lose their cool and express intolerance. When a subject in which one is interested makes it to the (temporary) status of HOT TOPIC, then one will notice the intolerance more frequently.
Currently, everyone is on edge regarding the war. And that topic can get even more heated because there are many more than two positions on the subject. A certain number of posters (being human) will boil it all down to a My Way or Wrong Way position, so they are liable to become exasperated even with posters whom they would recognize as “allies” in calmer threads. (I seem to remember (perhaps incorrectly) that more than one poster took a leave of absence when the Florida Vote Count Wars got to the point of firing live ammo.)
(Please note that all my observations, here, have been general, and I have barely glanced at any specific examples of “wrong posting” that have been cited in this thread. I am addressing the issues raised in the OP, regardless of how individuals have interacted in specific cases.)
This too shall pass.
You may now return to your regularly scheduled pitting.
**
How true – and how sad. Who is happier, a cold-blooded steely-eyed cynic or a someone with an unshakeable faith in human nature who genuinely believes that it will all come out right in the end, regardless of how many times their fellow man disappoints them?
Sometimes reality isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.
I haven’t made any bigotted statements. Bigots make judgments about people based on traits that are outside their control or unrelated to the topic being judged. Religious faith is a matter of choice and it is valid to make judgments and deductions based on a person’s choices.
Like I said, my statements were not bigotted. Insulting, perhaps. I did not intend to insult anyone, and if I did, I apologize. But I don’t know any particular way to say, “I think X made a stupid choice” without the possibility of X being offended.
If you think atheism is stupid and that I am a stupid person for subscribing to it, then you are free to say so. I won’t get my panties in a twist over it.
You keep throwing around that word “bigoted” as it meant something. You pray to a being you cannot see or hear and that you cannot know exists. To an atheist, that seems nonsensical. That’s not bigotry, that’s disagreement.
Now if I said ALL Christians molest kids or bring down property values or are lazy and drunk, then you could call me bigoted. Pointing out that there is an element of irrationality in believing in the invisible world is not bigotry.
I am gullible; somebody once told me that the word ‘gullible’ had been removed from the dictionary and I believed it (actually, I said “ReEEEAlly? wow, that’s weird”).
In truth I’ve actually fallen for that line three or four times in my life (the second time I had only a dim recollection of the joke, and I ended up saying “Yeah, I heard about that somewhere…”)
I’m not gullible enough, however, to believe that all this stuff is real.
OK, let’s take “bigoted” out of the mix, and keep it with “insulting and condescending”. I know you semi-backpedaled from it later so as to exempt people like Polycarp, etc from your sweeping generalizations, but your initial statement was this:
Oh, no, sure—not all Christians are “uncritical thinkers”, but a large segment are. That’s insulting.
And dear gobear, you didn’t just “disagree”. I have no problem with disagreeing. I have many atheist friends with whom I “disagree”, and who “disagree” with me. But we manage to not insult each other, or treat each other with such condescension.
You said that you thought we theists were more apt to be taken in by con-men. That’s a bit more than “disagreeing”, isn’t it?
Hey—since we’re such rubes, do you think we should bring an atheist with us whenever we go shopping for a new car? Since apparently your run-of-the-mill atheist will be more apt to sniff out a con-man than a theist will. We can’t be left to our own devices, I guess.
And on preview, what Mangetout said. All you know is what YOU don’t know—you don’t know jack shit about what others see, hear or know.
And these people are a large segment of Christians? You do know that there are all types of Christians, and many Christians all over the world? Do you have cites that prove that a large segment of the Christians all over the world are in this “uncritical thinking” category?
Also, you have not addressed the comments about theists being more apt to be taken in by con-men. Do you think that we should bring an atheist with us when we go car-shopping? Any atheist will do, because odds are that they’ll be less gullible than any Christian?
Being Christian does not make you more likely to be gullable.
But
Being Gullable in a Christian country makes you more likely to claim to be Christian.
Why…
Well a gullable person is allways less likely to question what someone else tells them, and in a Christian country (Yes USA is a Christian country) people are more likely to be told about educated as a Christian. This leads directly to a logical expectation that the subset of people who call themselves Christian is likely to have a higher rate of gullability than the subset of people who don’t call themselves Christian.
This supposes that in a large sampling of people claiming to be Christian there will be a number who if they chose to question their faith, will change their faith. And that Gullable people are less likely to question their religion.
It’s the same for anything that is purvasively advertised and available, the gullable are more likely to believe it is true, simply because they are less likely to question the truth of what they are told.
Cheers, Bippy
From the point of view of an athiest. A christian is someone who has been duped by a con at least once already. So of course they are more likely to be duped again. This is practually a truism. To believe otherwise an athiest would have to stop being an athiest.
Is this belief condescending and insulting? Yep. But so is “witnessing” to an athiest. There is simply no way to resolve this without suppressing the basic beliefs of either the athiest or believer.
It’s pretty pointless to complain about something that can only be resolved by suppressing the discussion of core beliefs. When said discussion is the reason for the existance of the GD forum. I can only say to you: stay away from GD if it makes you unhappy.
Maybe it would be a good idea to shop for cars in dealerships that are owned by Christians.
I really do not care what anybody believes. What matters is what you do, not what you think about doing or what you know you should do. What matters most is how you live and how you treat others.
I would rather be gullible and hang with the gullible than to be an asshole.
Tejota your first statement is only true if the Atheist also believes that
being duped once makes being duped again more likely
people exist who have never been duped once
I would argue that anyone believing 2 is gullable
or look at your first line like this…
I believe all Christians have breathed air. So of course they are more likely to breathe air again.
Doesn’t tell you anything about the relative likelyness of Christians breathing air as opposed to non-Christians.
So, Tejota, do you think Christians should bring an atheist with them when they go car-shopping? Do you think that Christians get duped more often by used car salesmen, by virtue of the fact that they are Christians?
You gonna volunteer to accompany Polycarp or tomndebb on their next car-buying expedition, “just for their own good”? Poor little deluded Christians, they’ve been duped already, so now they are more at risk to fall prey to every other con-man out there.
So it’s OK to insult those Christians who are not “witnessing” to atheists? Because some other Christians over there witness, that means you get to insult all Christians?
Golly, I guess that means that because some atheists have tried to “witness” to me (and were real condsecending jerks about it), then I get to insult all atheists and call them shitheads and pricks. Hey, some atheists are shitheads and pricks!
So being deliberately insulting is a “core belief”? Funny, my atheist friends in real life don’t have this “core belief”. They don’t feel compelled to insult me or be condescending to me. Did they not get the memo?
Well, of COURSE we Christians are gullible, and choose to believe what we WANT to believe, rather than what the evidence tells us.
That’s why, when Troffim Lysenko went around claiming that acquired traits are passed down to offspring, Christians swallowed that crud up!
Good thing the Soviet Union was run by atheists, who were purely rational, had no agenda, and would NEVER embrace a ridiculous theory just because it fit with their ideology. Lysenko could NEVER have found supporters there.
Just a random comment…and I just know I’m going to get soooo flamed for this, by somebody…but the rabid nature of the some of the hard-core atheists on this board have actually been a contributing factor to my own move away from atheism over the last few years. The level of hostility that some of this board’s atheists are capable of, shocked me so much that I examined my own reasons for being an atheist. And upon calm, sober reflection, I found them lacking. I am now in a mild, happy state of agnosticism, and I don’t expect to move from there for quite a while.
(I’ve been itching to say that for a while, but didn’t feel like starting my own thread over it. Carry on.)
