# Selective ignorance **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2019, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111 "2019-12-19T20:20:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/61 "2019-12-30T20:15:42Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#): > > Regarding the Van Allen belt, it’s my understanding that it is indeed a dangerous place - if you _linger_ there. The Apollo trajectories, I read, were chosen to specifically avoid the most hazardous regions and pass quickly through what couldn’t be avoided. Quite right. > **[Van Allen radiation belt | Implications for space travel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt#Implications_for_space_travel)** > > Spacecraft travelling beyond low Earth orbit enter the zone of radiation of the Van Allen belts. Beyond the belts, they face additional hazards from cosmic rays and solar particle events. A region between the inner and outer Van Allen belts lies at 2 to 4 Earth radii and is sometimes referred to as the "safe zone". > Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. Geomagnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization... > [@](#): > > The Apollo missions marked the first event where humans traveled through the Van Allen belts, which was one of several radiation hazards known by mission planners.[33] The astronauts had low exposure in the Van Allen belts due to the short period of time spent flying through them. Apollo flight trajectories bypassed the inner belts completely, passing through the thinner areas of the outer belts.[25][34] Astronauts’ overall exposure was actually dominated by solar particles once outside Earth’s magnetic field. The belts lie in toruses circling Terra. Launch from a pole to skip the belts, and Sol will still roast us. I’ll take improved shielding, thanks. Back to willful ignorance. We believe what we want to believe, even as reality whacks our heads. A knowledge system allows or requires self-correction; a belief system, not. We can paste-together beliefs from anywhere and personalize them as we wish. Jehovah told Noah to load his ark with sub-sustainable populations of animals “that walk on all fours.” AFAIK the only insects that qualify are mantids. All other insects and arthropods are thus Satanic. That’s not open to scientific disproof, so it’s true, Q.E.D. Squash the bugs! Except my pet tarantula. It’s specially blessed. Just gaze into those eyes… ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2019, 8:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/62 "2019-12-30T20:24:52Z")
> [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion. As others have said, atheism is the lack of belief in a god. There are a near infinite number of possible gods. Why would I believe a god who interacts with the inhabitants of a planet in a galaxy three galaxies over does not exist? I lack belief in this god, until I get good evidence of its existence. That’s what any rational person should do. We might believe that some gods, the types that created the universe in 6 days, don’t exist. > [@](#): > > Climate change is called “weather”. Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very **negligible** issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of. And most of those issues have corrected themselves or have been made infinitesimal. Mankind has nothing to do with this planet shifting on it’s axis, or the continents shifting, which in turn creates altered weather patterns. Mankind has never had control over this, and anyone who thinks so is an imbecile. The earth has shifted and changed all of it’s life, and will continue to do so, even after mankind has long disappeared from killing themselves. Climate and weather are different. In the Bay Area we have microclimates, which have very different average temperatures in the summer, for instance. On a particular day a hotter climate may be cooler than a colder one. On Christmas day my daughter’s town in Indiana was warmer than my town in the Bay Area. You think this is an indication of their climates? > [@](#): > > Walking on the moon. Well, I’ve watched many a program and documentary on this, including the conspiracy theory ones. From what I’ve heard and seen in these programs, if any of it is to be believed, there is more factual evidence that the moon landing never happened and was fake. Several scientists in different programs brought up the same issue on this matter though…at that time in our history, there was no protection from the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding this planet, and no living thing could have survived going through it to the moon. This just shows you should brush up on your critical thinking. I personally saw Apollo XVII take off. Even assuming there was some good reason for faking Apollo XI (and there wasn’t) why fake six more? Plus, I saw a vial of moondust at MIT in September 1969. Pretty fast to arrange a fake. Samples had been sent out already - were all the scientists who analyzed them in on the hoax? > [@](#): > > I’m no scientist, but the impossible has always occurred, so there is no telling. But my personal opinion is, that it was faked. To much evidence points to it being faked, than it being true. I can only guess that you haven’t looked into evidence for the moon landings, or understood why the supposed evidence against them is crap. Are you aware that there is a reflector placed on the moon by the astronauts which you can bounce lasers off of? Are you aware that the Australian tracking stations that received transmissions from the astronauts could tell where the transmissions came from? If you wanted to, you could match the view of Earth from Apollo VIII and later flights with the weather that day. How could that be faked in real time using 1968 computers? I could go on. So let’s see if you can admit that your beliefs are demonstrably incorrect. That will tell us where you fall on your own scale. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 3, 2020, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/63 "2020-01-03T01:23:32Z")
> [@Kimera757](#): > > Climate change is even harder. It’s become incredibly politicized and the green movement has been really bad at talking about it. If you believe in it, you are expected to change your lifestyle, likely to be less enjoyable… so there’s another reason not to believe in it. It’s hard to get people to think about the future. It’s even harder to get people to perceive the risks. Headlines that we soon will be unable to stop temperature increases of 2 degrees Celsius don’t provoke outrage and aren’t viewed as credible. (They should also use the term Fahrenheit if the intent is to convince Americans.) According to Peter Sandman, a risk communication specialist, “the most important truth in risk communication is the exceedingly low correlation between whether a risk is dangerous, and whether it’s upsetting”. This applies to climate change, vaccines, and many other issues. I agree. The marketing/method of persuasion is one of the absolute worst, especially if it is true that our grandchildren will die a miserable death. First, I have no reason to distrust the experts. None. I know nothing about their subject and therefore I must take what they say, especially given their near unanimity on blind faith. Fair enough. But given that, why is it only the far left-Greenpeace types that are pushing it? Surely (at least) moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats want to see their grandchildren live good lives. If it is truly such a looming potential tragedy, why are not 90% of the politicians (excluding Trump and the evil 10%) pushing for it? Why is there not MORE of an urgency? Why only the hard left like AOC and her ilk constantly talking about it? Does she love her unborn descendants more than, say, Mitt Romney? Further, the blame is directed at people personally. It is MY fault for living in the suburbs, my fault for eating meat, my fault for driving an SUV, my fault for using oil and gas. Then something comes along like banning plastic straws and plastic bags and we are told that is to save marine animals. You look dishonest when you do that. You convince us that we are combating global warming but pass “Save the Whales” type laws under its heading. Then it is something that the United States and Europe has to bear alone. China? Yeah they are the worst polluters, but I don’t hear the left asking for heavy sanctions on them; just complaining at me and my SUV. Next, we have already taken extraordinary steps towards lowering CO2 emissions. CAFE standards in cars have driven up prices except for the little unsafe cheesebox cars. Emissions are so much better you cannot even commit suicide in a car in an enclosed garage. So, in short, the marketing issue on this very serious matter is manifest. You have people who generally hate us lecturing us like school children, passing irrelevant legislation, and doing nothing to the other guy who is far worse than we are. Finally, what exactly is being asked of us? No more meat? No more SUVs or living in the suburbs? I’ve not heard a serious proposal about what Average Joe has to do to combat this other than a giant middle finger blaming us. You want our support, then first: 1. Quit putting radicals as spokespeople on this issue. Get moderates and some conservatives. 2. Give us an 8th grade answer as to how we know it is happening. 3. Tell us in concrete terms what we need to do to fight THIS issue. Don’t piggyback other environmental issues on top of it. It looks deceitful. 4. At least be as hard on China as you are on the United States. > [@GreenWyvern](#): > > The common-sense argument for climate change (assuming that the person you are talking to has any) is: > > • The earth is warming up - this is as firmly established as any scientific fact about the weather could possibly be. It’s possible to argue about the reasons for it, but not about the temperature rise itself. > > • Human beings have been dumping tens of billions of tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year - year after year and decade after decade. To imagine that this has _no_ effect is unscientific. > > • It’s possible to argue about what the nature of the effect is, or how large it is, but it is not possible to argue that human activity has no effect. If volcanoes spewing out ash can affect world climate, then many decades of pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere can affect world climate. **Actions have consequences.** > > • Large corporations whose industries produce greenhouse gases have a strong financial interest in preventing any regulation. They are pouring many millions of dollars all the time into funding anti-climate-change organizations, creating anti-climate-change talking points, publicizing them through media organizations which are friendly to large corporations, and lobbying governments. These are also facts. > > • This means that any argument about climate change has to be very carefully and critically examined, and allowance has to be made for the propaganda effort financed by corporations who don’t want to reduce emissions because that would reduce their profits. That is why it is best to accept the consensus of independent scientists. This is an excellent start on the 8th grade argument mentioned above. However, I bolded the part about how actions have consequences. That’s not necessarily intuitive. One could reason that the environment is so large compared to human output that the human output is like a pebble in the ocean. I know that isn’t true, but it must be shown, not asserted. Further your last two paragraphs betray a political bias that will not be accepted by many people. The same people who want to chop corporations off at the knees have wanted to do so long before climate change became an issue. Continuing to harp on corporations only exudes a political bias which will hurt the marketing effort. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2020, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/64 "2020-01-07T21:01:47Z")
> [@atimnie](#): > > No one is 100% rational all the time. Not even Spock. ---
**Author:** ![LoneRhino](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lonerhino/32/1311_2.png) [@LoneRhino](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LoneRhino)\ **Post date:** [January 7, 2020, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/65 "2020-01-07T23:22:13Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Not even Spock. Pon Farr doesn’t count. ---
**Author:** ![rsat3acr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/a3d4f5/32.png) [@rsat3acr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsat3acr)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/66 "2020-01-08T01:42:12Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Not even Spock. that damn human mother. ---
**Author:** ![Kimera757](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kimera757/32/3765_2.png) [@Kimera757](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimera757)\ **Post date:** [January 8, 2020, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/67 "2020-01-08T01:54:22Z")
> [@rsat3acr](#): > > that damn human mother. Spock was more logical than most Vulcans (until he got old), at which point he was still very rational, but removed the stick from his behind. ---
**Author:** ![jerez](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/c68b51/32.png) [@jerez](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jerez)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/68 "2020-01-13T07:49:40Z")
“Obtuse” might be a better word than “ignorant,” but you know what happened to Andy Dufresne when he used it. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 10:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/69 "2020-01-13T10:56:19Z")
> [@QuickSilver](#): > > …And you call yourself a Nice Guy, Jack? Maybe his name is a take-off on [‘Nice Guy’ Eddie](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljjRZe6g5EM). I’m tired of fighting ignorance, but there’s one common theme that can be turned to the advantage of rational thought: > [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > … But oh no, the earth has gone through cold-warm cycles before… There are two reasons this should INCREASE concern about climate change. (1) Dramatic climate changes in the post show how fragile the climate equilibrium is. For example, the closing of a waterway, near present-day Panama, connecting two oceans was sometimes “credited” with plunging Earth into the Pleistocene Freeze. Modest CO2 changes have had a profound effect on temperature; and the present CO2 increase is quite _im_modest. (2) The cold-warm cycles in the past have had a huge effect on ecology. Even now, with the big damage still to come, there are sharp ecological changes on view. In parts of the the ocean, jellyfish are replacing fish as key predator. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/70 "2020-01-13T14:24:00Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > I agree. The marketing/method of persuasion is one of the absolute worst, especially if it is true that our grandchildren will die a miserable death. > > First, I have no reason to distrust the experts. None. I know nothing about their subject and therefore I must take what they say, especially given their near unanimity on blind faith. Fair enough. > > But given that, why is it only the far left-Greenpeace types that are pushing it? Surely (at least) moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats want to see their grandchildren live good lives. If it is truly such a looming potential tragedy, why are not 90% of the politicians (excluding Trump and the evil 10%) pushing for it? Why is there not MORE of an urgency? Why only the hard left like AOC and her ilk constantly talking about it? Does she love her unborn descendants more than, say, Mitt Romney? I see that you are also falling for how even powerful interests are framing the narrative, they do not tell you how they also control the propaganda and even the mainstream corporate media falls into minimizing the harm that is being done. But getting ahead of the point here, before powerful interests controlled the narrative, many conservatives still looked at the science, people like that pinko commie 🙂 Margaret Thatcher: > **[Margaret Thatcher's Strong Stance on Climate Change | Climate Central](https://www.climatecentral.org/news/the-iron-ladys-strong-stance-on-climate-change-15840)** > > Former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saw climate science as credible and global warming as a threat. > [@](#): > > Less noted is how seriously she viewed the threat of climate change and the robustness, more than 20 years ago, of climate science and the United Nations body tasked with assessing the state of that science. > > In a 1990 speech at the second World Climate Conference, in Geneva, Thatcher compared the threat of global warming to the Gulf War, which was then just escalating following Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait. > > And Thatcher, who spent 11 years as the United Kingdom’s prime minister, called the work of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “remarkable” and “very careful.” > ‘Real Enough’ > > “The danger of global warming is as yet unseen, but real enough for us to make changes and sacrifices, so that we do not live at the expense of future generations,” she told delegates, according to a transcript of the speech archived online at the Margaret Thatcher Foundation. A short video also survives. > > “Our ability to come together to stop or limit damage to the world’s environment will be perhaps the greatest test of how far we can act as a world community,” she said. “We shall need statesmanship of a rare order.” More recently, you asked why it seems that AOC and others like her are the ones talking about it, it is because powerful groups (many times funded by the fossil fuel industry) succeeded in turning the Republican Party (specially the leaders) into a party of willful ignorants, that were compelled to make things like cap and trade a ‘tool of the devil’ when it was a good tool to involve private industry with the solutions and be a part of them. The whole history of that can be read or seen in the obligatory to check Frontline program [“Climate of Doubt”](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/climate-of-doubt/transcript/) ---
**Author:** ![Razncain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9d8465/32.png) [@Razncain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Razncain)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/71 "2020-01-13T15:03:59Z")
> [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Climate change is called “weather”. Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! No, in a nutshell, weather is short-term, climate is long-term, which is based on many years of data collected. Weather is how you can plan what to wear the next few days or so in advance, and also plan any outside activities. Climate is many years of data collecting and taking that data to determine if the climate is staying the same or changing in the long-term. That data shows it is changing, it is warming up, and 97% of scientists in a survey think it is man-made. If you’re old enough, do you remember when the hole in the ozone was often in the news, and was getting bigger? Scientists were blaming CFC’s for that. World leaders listened, and there was an international ban on such chemicals. Now, there is plenty of evidence just a few decades later showing how that particular hole has healed up, not entirely, but instead of getting bigger, there has been a vast improvement. Keep that in mind when you hear of people that deny climate change is real, and that man is not contributing to that either. > [@GIGObuster](#): > > But getting ahead of the point here, before powerful interests controlled the narrative, many conservatives still looked at the science, people like that pinko commie 🙂 Margaret Thatcher: Most also don’t realize at one time quite a few important Republicans were also on the same page as Democrats concerning climate change being very real and was man-made. But corporations and their money, along with many religious folk thinking God will take care of it, have many burying their heads in the sand, and/or their bibles (same result). [Jim Jeffries take on it. 🙂](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oS9VzE0Kqq0) ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/72 "2020-01-22T13:20:26Z")
I confess, I completely forgot I had initially posted on this topic. It has been an interesting read, and I am surprised there are some dopers actually believe the climate change and moonwalk is a hoax. It seems _willful ignorance_ is a better description than _selective ignorance_. I’ll try using that for future reference. Apart from the discussion on climate change and moonwalk with the willfully ignorant dopers, I found it interesting that there was also discussion about atheism and the definition thereof. Personally, I could easily just lump the religious believers into the _‘willfully ignorant’_ category, but I know it’s not as simple as that. Where the moonwalk, and climate change deniers willfully chose to ignore scientific facts that prove it to be real, there is a cultural and patriarchal pressure that keep people believing in a supernatural being. Not to mention the brainwashing for those raised in a specific religion endured as a child while growing up. I rarely, bring up religion in discussions, because it’s often a lost cause. If it does come up in discussion, it’s if someone else brings it up, especially if they then also proselytize. As the topic has been brought up, allow me to put my thoughts in on the subject. I’m of the same opinion as **Voyager** , atheism is not a religion, it’s the complete lack thereof. I do get irritated when people try to tell me, atheism is a form of belief when it is exactly not that. Just by the English language alone, it can be proven. Unless it starts a sentence, the word atheism or atheist is never capitalized. Because it’s not a belief or religion. So you Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists and all else, belong to a religion and as it is named, it requires a capital letter. If atheism was a belief, where is the capital A? As for the argument that even though there is no evidence of God, there is also no evidence there isn’t a God, I beg to differ. It’s been scientifically proven that God and gods in all it’s forms were created by man’s fertile imagination, and you have biologists, archaeologists, neuro-psychologists and anthropologists to thank for the evidence. And it is cumulative evidence. From biologists, we have the Theory of Evolution, an important factor, and if you have trouble accepting evolution as fact, then this would be lost on you. From an evolutionary standpoint, we know we evolved into humans. Our closest living cousins are the chimpanzees and bonobos with which we shared a common ancestor a few million years ago. It is most likely that our common ancestor was probably a lot more chimp-like than human. So the brain would likely have been more like a chimp’s if not less evolved. So, ask yourself, would a chimp even understand the concept of an afterlife? Of course not. There is evidence of motherly attachment to offspring, which shows some emotional behavior. Who hasn’t seen a nature show where a primate mother clings on to a dead baby. Heart wrenching for sure, but eventually, the mother discards the carcass. They don’t bury their dead. They may be highly intelligent compared to other animals, but not intelligent enough to form philosophical or conceptual thought. So, why would our ancient ancestor be different? So we can deduce that the human brain evolved to become intelligent, intelligent enough to form philosophical and conceptual thought. Archaeologists have discovered how early man buried their dead with care and varying ceremony, they have also discovered that some of our evolutionary ancestors may have done the same. We also know that Neanderthals from whom humans did not evolve, were very intelligent and did bury their dead. Humans and Neanderthals coexisted, and they shared a common ancestor about 500,000 years ago. It is scientifically agreed that the split happened when a group of our common ancestors left Africa and evolved into Neanderthals who spread across Europe and Asia where as our own ancestors remained in Africa and evolved into us Homo Sapiens. The point is, it seems the concept of an afterlife, probably began in a human ancestral species less than a million years ago. Further, the concept of an afterlife brings on the concept of a creator, which brings us to the next group of scientists. Neurologists and to some extent psychologists have shown that the development of the human brain from childhood to adulthood goes through stages in learning. A child’s brain is wide open as it absorbs and learns language and senses. It is also open to rules and ideas that the parents teach them, and this comes from an urgent need to understand and identify threats and danger in the wild. Things like, don’t walk too close to the water’s edge as there may be crocodile’s. Obviously an advantage to keep children out of harm’s way, but it unfortunately allows a child’s brain to be cluttered by nonsense such as God. As for how the concept of God came about, it was simply ignorance and imagination. Humans have a natural curiosity for knowledge, but where an answer is not found, it is a common and easy step to fill the gaps with superstition. Early man didn’t have the means or ability to learn what the stars were or why the sun rises and sets. The human mind craved/needed an answer, and when there was no explanation available, imagination provided the explanation. Imagination also provided healthy fodder to superstition, and the concept of spirits emerged, where hunters would pray or offer some token to the spirits for a good hunt. You still find spiritual concepts in modern religions like Taoism and Shintoism. Eventually, the spirits turned into gods and so on. To this day, we can give a pretty good estimate when every God or gods were created by man. As for the anthropologists, they confirm the above by studying superstition in primitive tribes. To conclude, my concept of God is that it was created by man and I have presented my evidence above. If you have to claim there is no evidence there isn’t a God, then allow me to provide the evidence: Without human superstition and imagination, there is no God. ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 2:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/73 "2020-01-22T14:13:37Z")
Sometimes atheists don’t help their own cause by introducing social justice warrior contempt into the discussion. I heard this exchange recently on an atheist call-in show: Caller: Our morality is based on biblical principles. Atheist: Do you agree that it’s wrong for one person to own another person as property? Caller: Yes, slavery is wrong. Atheist: You do realize the Bible supports slavery? Caller: But you see, back in those days… Atheist: No! No! Don’t you make any justifications for slavery! Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then! Period!! Get off my show!! (Hangs up on caller) This might make for an exciting show, but it just cements atheists’ reputation for being contemptuous know-it-alls, and doesn’t foster any sort of beneficial discussion. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/74 "2020-01-22T15:03:25Z")
> [@Bryan Ekers](#): > > Originally Posted by chaidragonfire View Post > As many of my teachers and employers I have heard comment to closed minded people– > > “If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem”. > Some people will talk in clichés until the cows come home. Then you should lead, follow, or get out of their way!😃 > [@Velocity](#): > > My aunt is like this. She is highly educated, great at math, understands real estate and business very sharply…and is a 9/11 conspiracy theorist and Flat-Earther. Her logic is basically: If she can point out one flaw in your case, you’re done, but no matter how many flaws there are in her case, her argument remains intact. > > It is a cherry-picking buffet of information and selective ignorance, as the OP says. Watch the movie “Thank You For Smoking”. In particular the scene where Nick Naylor (Aaron Eckhart) is explaining to his son how he does his job as a lobbyist for the tobacco industry. He doesn’t have to prove himself “right”. He only has to prove his opposition “wrong”. He’s not trying to convince his opponent. He’s trying to convince the uninformed moron who doesn’t know any better. > [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Atheism is a religion. Religion is a particular faith in a concept, ideal, or supreme being. Atheists believe there is no god, and have faith in their concept that this is true. Hence, it is a religion and atheists are religious. So when you talk about atheists, you are talking about religion. Well, that’s really a semantic argument. But there certainly are plenty of atheists who are as fanatical about their atheism as the most religious zeolite. I would concede that there probably is some level of reality above what we currently understand or possibly could understand. However, I also think that the classical Biblical concept of “God” as some supreme intelligence that sits in judgement over how well humans adhere to some particular religious dogma sounds pretty silly to me. I mean if you believe in God and Jesus Christ as portrayed in the Bible, why is Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny less absurd? > [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Climate change is called “weather”. Razncain covered this pretty well. > [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Mankind has never had control over the weather, EVER! Mankind has polluted the atmosphere which has caused very negligible issues on a global scale, and nothing anywhere near the kind of problems the fanatics speak of. And most of those issues have corrected themselves or have been made infinitesimal. Mankind has nothing to do with this planet shifting on it’s axis, or the continents shifting, which in turn creates altered weather patterns. Mankind has never had control over this, and anyone who thinks so is an imbecile. The earth has shifted and changed all of it’s life, and will continue to do so, even after mankind has long disappeared from killing themselves. The “planet shifting on it’s axis” and “continental drift” has nothing to do with climate change. > [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Walking on the moon. Well, I’ve watched many a program and documentary on this, including the conspiracy theory ones. From what I’ve heard and seen in these programs, if any of it is to be believed, there is more factual evidence that the moon landing never happened and was fake. Several scientists in different programs brought up the same issue on this matter though…at that time in our history, there was no protection from the effects of the Van Allen radiation belt surrounding this planet, and no living thing could have survived going through it to the moon. > > I’m no scientist, but the impossible has always occurred, so there is no telling. But my personal opinion is, that it was faked. To much evidence points to it being faked, than it being true. Landings [plural]. There were six of them. Apollo 11,12,14,15,16,and 17. Apollo 13 obviously didn’t quite get there. So it’s your conjecture that one of the most documented events in human history was somehow “faked”…six times? > [@chaidragonfire](#): > > Science is the art of investigation into a specific piece of evidence. When people hear “science” or “scientist” they immediately think of concrete, proven facts, which is incorrect. Scientists may discover facts here and there, during their research and investigations, but they are for the most part only theorists. They take what is known, weigh it against the unknown, and postulate a theory on the matter or subject. This does not make anything a scientists says actual fact, only theory or opinion. > > I personally take offense of any “scientist” telling me anything they state is fact, if they haven’t previously given rock solid evidence of what they state is true. In other words, I take what scientists say “with a grain of salt”. > > A REAL scientist will give you what facts they have, the unknowns, and theories, to let you make up your own mind of whether something “is” or “isn’t”. Anyone else is a fraud or attention seeker. Well that’s the problem isn’t it? We now have the means where anyone with any agenda can make a highly polished presentation of “facts”, present it online, and have enough people will give it equal weight to respected, peer reviewed sources. And then they think everyone else is a “brainwashed moron” because they don’t believe some garage YouTube video “evidence” over 60 years of documented history. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/75 "2020-01-22T15:32:22Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > Sometimes atheists don’t help their own cause by introducing social justice warrior contempt into the discussion. > > I heard this exchange recently on an atheist call-in show: > > Caller: Our morality is based on biblical principles. > > Atheist: Do you agree that it’s wrong for one person to own another person as property? > > Caller: Yes, slavery is wrong. > > Atheist: You do realize the Bible supports slavery? > > Caller: But you see, back in those days… > > Atheist: No! No! Don’t you make any justifications for slavery! Slavery is wrong now and it was wrong then! Period!! Get off my show!! (Hangs up on caller) > This might make for an exciting show, but it just cements atheists’ reputation for being contemptuous know-it-alls, and doesn’t foster any sort of beneficial discussion. You have a point. I don’t know what kind of show it was you listened to, but the conversation you described was completely pointless and no one learned anything. However, I confess I could come across as a know it all. If I were to discuss religion with a friend or acquaintance that was strongly religious, it sometimes feel like I am arguing with a child. And, I see the same in other atheist. Let’s put it into perspective, what would you think of a 35 year old man who still believes in Santa Clause? Let’s be honest, you’d think he were a bit backward right? You might even feel a bit sorry for him and perhaps pander to his belief as if he were a child. “Sure Harry, I’m sure Santa will bring you something nice this year.” Now, I can’t speak for all atheists, but I sort of do the same for acquaintances, friends and family. Er, thanks for praying for me, I’m sure I’ll recover from this cold soon. And by the way, I never hide the fact that I am an atheist and I’ve had people pray for my soul as if that were a thing. Yes, I can’t help but put myself above them, what can I do, they believe in what is essentially Santa in a different suite. How can you not feel a bit above them? ---
**Author:** ![am77494](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d2c977/32.png) [@am77494](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/am77494)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/76 "2020-01-22T16:24:51Z")
First of all Atheism being opposite to Religion is a western construct. You can be an atheist Hindu since Hinduism is a way of living and not really a set of rules like religion. As to science being “all rational and provable” is itself a BELIEF and is unprovable as an extension of the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem in the 1930. Just look at String theory. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/77 "2020-01-22T17:16:56Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > First of all Atheism being opposite to Religion is a western construct. You can be an atheist Hindu since Hinduism is a way of living and not really a set of rules like religion. Hinduism as a religion was a British concept, you are right about the various philosophical and spiritual ideas and traditions, and that includes atheism. The British need to categorize Indian ideas in opposition to Christianity, coined the Hindu religion for that purpose. Before the British, Indians did not identify themselves under a Hindu religion, rather they had a large number of philosophical concepts. The differences within the Hindu religion is substantial, but by lumping them together, it has also created a sense of religious unity. > [@am77494](#): > > As to science being “all rational and provable” is itself a BELIEF and is unprovable as an extension of the Gödel’s incompleteness theorem in the 1930. Just look at String theory. I think you are confusing scientific method with scientific fact. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/78 "2020-01-22T17:50:06Z")
I think a lot of people are unaware of how it is we know things. I think they assume a bunch of smart people throw out ideas, and whichever idea sounds best to the other smart people, wins. So I think it can be best to step back and talk about the scientific method, skepticism etc explaining how we gain confidence in our models (and question whether their conspiracy theories have gone through such a process). On climate change specifically, a bit of rhetorical flourish might help: “While the climate has changed throughout Earth’s history, the speed of the warming right now is about 10 times as fast as any seen in the last 65 million years ([cite](https://news.stanford.edu/news/2013/august/climate-change-speed-080113.html)). So you’d better \*hope \*the scientists are right and it’s due to the increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Otherwise, the earth is going through a very big, very sudden, change, and we would have no hope of doing anything about it.” ---
**Author:** ![Two\_Many\_Cats](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8dc957/32.png) [@Two\_Many\_Cats](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Two_Many_Cats)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/79 "2020-01-22T20:42:43Z")
> [@NiceGuyJack](#): > > You have a point. I don’t know what kind of show it was you listened to, but the conversation you described was completely pointless and no one learned anything. > However, I confess I could come across as a know it all. If I were to discuss religion with a friend or acquaintance that was strongly religious, it sometimes feel like I am arguing with a child. And, I see the same in other atheist. > Let’s put it into perspective, what would you think of a 35 year old man who still believes in Santa Clause? Let’s be honest, you’d think he were a bit backward right? You might even feel a bit sorry for him and perhaps pander to his belief as if he were a child. “Sure Harry, I’m sure Santa will bring you something nice this year.” > Now, I can’t speak for all atheists, but I sort of do the same for acquaintances, friends and family. Er, thanks for praying for me, I’m sure I’ll recover from this cold soon. > And by the way, I never hide the fact that I am an atheist and I’ve had people pray for my soul as if that were a thing. Yes, I can’t help but put myself above them, what can I do, they believe in what is essentially Santa in a different suite. How can you not feel a bit above them? As Edith Bunker said to Mike Stivic, “If you were really smarter than Archie, you wouldn’t let Archie know you were smarter.” In other words, don’t be a jerk about things. In the call-in show, the atheist host would’ve done better not to just hang up on the caller, trying to show his audience how woke he was on civil rights. Instead, it could have gone like this: Caller: But you see, back in those days, a lot of people owned slaves. The Bible had rules about how to treat them, and even mandated freeing them during Jubilee or in cases of abuse. Host: So, you’re saying what the Bible says about slavery is okay because back then slavery was an accepted thing. Caller: It was. And the Bible had rules… Host: Yes, yes, the Bible had rules that were acceptable back then, because slavery was accepted back then. But the thing about what is acceptable in society evolves with changing times. Would you agree that times have changed since the Bible was written? Slavery is no longer acceptable? Caller: Of course slavery isn’t acceptable. Host: Yes, because morality has evolved. But the Bible, as written, cannot evolve. It is frozen in time. You can have different translations, but they all say the same thing. How can we base an evolving morality on a static set of biblical rules? And the discussion could go on, and it still would be interesting. ---
**Author:** ![NiceGuyJack](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/niceguyjack/32/3069_2.png) [@NiceGuyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/NiceGuyJack)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111/80 "2020-01-22T22:26:31Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > As Edith Bunker said to Mike Stivic, “If you were really smarter than Archie, you wouldn’t let Archie know you were smarter.” > > In other words, don’t be a jerk about things. > > In the call-in show, the atheist host would’ve done better not to just hang up on the caller, trying to show his audience how woke he was on civil rights. Instead, it could have gone like this: > > Caller: But you see, back in those days, a lot of people owned slaves. The Bible had rules about how to treat them, and even mandated freeing them during Jubilee or in cases of abuse. > > Host: So, you’re saying what the Bible says about slavery is okay because back then slavery was an accepted thing. > > Caller: It was. And the Bible had rules… > > Host: Yes, yes, the Bible had rules that were acceptable back then, because slavery was accepted back then. But the thing about what is acceptable in society evolves with changing times. Would you agree that times have changed since the Bible was written? Slavery is no longer acceptable? > > Caller: Of course slavery isn’t acceptable. > > Host: Yes, because morality has evolved. But the Bible, as written, cannot evolve. It is frozen in time. You can have different translations, but they all say the same thing. How can we base an evolving morality on a static set of biblical rules? > And the discussion could go on, and it still would be interesting. As mentioned, I agree with you. Nobody learned anything from the original dialogue you described. Your example is much better. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/selective-ignorance/845111.md?page=5)