I think a big part of why some athieists are squirrely about religion is that:
A. It’s has a powerful influence over what many people think and do, often more so than anthing else.
B. It’s way too easy for it to be misused.
Cite: just about any religious-based war in history.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
It sounds to my ear almost like you’re saying that if falsifiable evidence is useless for the supernatural, then some other evidence has to be invented.
[/quote]
Actually, you’ve got it the other way around. Falsification is a concept invented by Karl Popper, and not until quite recently.
Popper knew that claimed falsifications are not necessarily real. The principle of falsifiability was not meant to be a description or a “recipe” for science. For him, the falsifiability criterion was not itself falsifiable.Robert P Crease
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Yes. Further, I’d reiterate that it’s not the same because it is not based on zero evidence. It’s based on inconclusive evidence.
[/QUOTE]
So you say, but you haven’t provided any. I’ve read the Bible a time or two. would that be evidence that God exists?
I am usually able to separate things that have some objective truth and things that are subjective. Knowing not to compare apples to oranges is not so breathtaking.
Personal experience is personal evidence. It’s the evidence we all use to form some of our conclusions what is true, even if we hold that truth provisionally.
Because of it’s personal subjective nature it should not be mistaken for or expected to be evidence that can be demonstrated to others. If you’d rather not call it evidence at all it doesn’t matter. It remains the way humans operate.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that have objective elements but many do not.
True. Since I recommend looking at belief systems and find that to be a more helpful way of discussing beliefs. I do see the difference between certainty and a theory. It’s important to remember that not all religious beliefs are certainties. When there’s a discussion of religion on the boards it’s not just about the fundies and it’s helpful to be specific.
You can avoid answering for any reason you wish. Any point you raise can be challenged and it is indeed the tradition of this board whether or not you agree or like it. It’s also relevant if you think beliefs based in objective reality should be based on or at least influenced by objective evidence and facts.
I believe I covered that already.
I try to go by intent. For the most part I find most Christians do not flaunt there beliefs but the ones that do have opened themselves to comments IMO.
I’m also interested in seeing where I compared your theory to fundamentalist beliefs and have you answer the question I posed about you reevaluating your theory.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Actually, you’ve got it the other way around. Falsification is a concept invented by Karl Popper, and not until quite recently.
Popper knew that claimed falsifications are not necessarily real. The principle of falsifiability was not meant to be a description or a “recipe” for science. For him, the falsifiability criterion was not itself falsifiable.Robert P Crease
[/QUOTE]
What? I’ve got what the other way around? Who cares who invented falsification and when it was invented? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
I said that it seems to me that you are in need of making up evidence and that when you point out that we’ve agreed that scientific evidence doesn’t apply, you feel the need to continue searching for evidence anyway rather than considering that there may be no evidence. That’s what I was talking about.
I didn’t understand why you said “but” at the beginning of your last reply as if the fact that scientific evidence doesn’t apply somehow makes your other reasons into ‘evidence’ as a result.
As for the latter part of your post, I’ve already stated that I’m not interested. I also added ‘no offense.’ So kindly give it a rest as it relates to talking to me about that when I’ve respectfully told you I’ve no interest in that. I’m not interested in being goaded into your solipsistic absurdities. You’ve already stated in an earlier post that you feel science proves nothing about anything. So what’s the point?
It’s bizarre that you accused czarcasm of ‘harassing’ you and yet here you are going on about some imagined discussion you think we’re (not) having.
Someone upthread stated that they would be “…polite…until you invaded my personal space with your baseless attacks.”
In the same spirit, you’re invading my personal space and this will be my last polite post to you.
I gave you props for stating your reasons. I said I respected your views. I thanked you for sharing them. You’ve never answered my honest question about how it is you’d suggest I express my views without offending you. Instead, you persist on a tangent. Persisting on tangents seems to be a theme in here.
I am offended by both your ignoring of what I’ve asked and by your persistence in pursuing a tangent (with me) that I’ve told you I have no interest in.
I stated at the very beginning of this stupid back and forth with you that I would not engage you after you apparently took offense at my expression of my opinion.
I went against my own better judgment and what I said by nonetheless jumping in long enough to acknowledge the time you took to state your reasons for belief.
Clearly, that was a mistake on my part. I’m done with you (again).
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Serious question: If my opinion is inherently offensive (which I could understand), then is there **any **way to express the thought (sans evidence) as an honest opinion in a discussion about religion on a board without offending you?
[/QUOTE]
It certainly is the case that some opinions might be inherently offensive. For example, if someone stated that “The real objects of our pity should be the children of atheists, and not the atheists themselves because it is their children who must suffer the consequences of being deprived of a well rounded education,” there’s probably no way of expressing that opinion without offending the atheists whom it disclaims to offend. But I think, personally, that most offense comes from context. If you have just been called brain damaged, mentally retarded, and dangerous, it would be untactful for someone to follow that up with a theory that your shorctomings stem from a vestigial defect in the reptilian brain. At the very least, look over what you’re saying for metaphors and loaded terms. You should realize that theories about defective brains recapitulate theories of the past from racists opinining about the intelligence of negroes. And be prepared to back up what you say. I cited a world renowned neurological researcher who said that limbic brain activity could be as effectively used to argue for rather than against the existence of God. But most important, just remember that you’re talking to people — at least here on the Dope — who are your intellectual peers. Atheist and theist alike, we all deserve a default position of respect, until and unless we present ourselves as irrational dogmatists on either side.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
What? I’ve got what the other way around? Who cares who invented falsification and when it was invented? What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
[/quote]
It’s got to do with what you said: “It sounds to my ear almost like you’re saying that if falsifiable evidence is useless for the supernatural, then some other evidence has to be invented.” Emphasis mine. It was you who drew the distinction between falsifiable evidence and evidence that is just plain invented. I was pointing out that falsification was itself an invented form of evidence, and only just recently.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
So you say, but you haven’t provided any. I’ve read the Bible a time or two. would that be evidence that God exists?
I am usually able to separate things that have some objective truth and things that are subjective. Knowing not to compare apples to oranges is not so breathtaking.
Personal experience is personal evidence. It’s the evidence we all use to form some of our conclusions what is true, even if we hold that truth provisionally.
Because of it’s personal subjective nature it should not be mistaken for or expected to be evidence that can be demonstrated to others. If you’d rather not call it evidence at all it doesn’t matter. It remains the way humans operate.
There are plenty of religious beliefs that have objective elements but many do not.
True. Since I recommend looking at belief systems and find that to be a more helpful way of discussing beliefs. I do see the difference between certainty and a theory. It’s important to remember that not all religious beliefs are certainties. When there’s a discussion of religion on the boards it’s not just about the fundies and it’s helpful to be specific.
You can avoid answering for any reason you wish. Any point you raise can be challenged and it is indeed the tradition of this board whether or not you agree or like it. It’s also relevant if you think beliefs based in objective reality should be based on or at least influenced by objective evidence and facts.
I believe I covered that already.
I try to go by intent. For the most part I find most Christians do not flaunt there beliefs but the ones that do have opened themselves to comments IMO.
I’m also interested in seeing where I compared your theory to fundamentalist beliefs and have you answer the question I posed about you reevaluating your theory.
[/QUOTE]
My answer to your question that you posed about reevaluating my theory was literally the first WORD of my post with which I replied.
As for my opinion, I did provide evidence but it’s irrelevant to the discussion I’m engaged in. As for objective/subjective evidence and your acceptance of** Liberal’s ** reasons as evidence because personal experience is evidence, that’s groovy, I don’t care. I stated that I don’t think that’s evidence because it’s not falsifiable. You disagree. Okay.
So what?
The OP is about, and my question is, how to express an opinion such as the one I have without offending someone. You’ve already stated, I believe, that in this thread I can just come out and say it. So, I’d like to hear from someone that would find it offensive for me to come out and say it…like I did.
I asked Liberal at least once or twice since it appeared he was the one that took offense and I have yet to receive an answer.
I don’t get the feeling anyone’s going to provide an answer.
Instead, you want to talk about evidence for an opinion I posted while labeling personal experience as evidence along, presumably, with the other categories of ‘evidence’ provided by Liberal – several of which could be just as well used in defense of my opinion insofar as observations, deductive reasoning, etc. but as I’ve said before that’s not the topic of this thread, not what I was introducing for discussion, and was part of my answer to the OP as to why religious folks may be defensive.
What a bunch of defensive, prickly, deflecting people. Holy crap.
I included in my last couple of posts to you specifically that I think you are far more open-minded than most religious people. I’ve also stated in another thread specifically to you that non-fundamentalists are not what I call religion. You can define it any way you’d like and that’s certainly valid. It’s not how I define it.
I’m done trying to be nice. I’m sure you’ll say I’ve been an asshole anyway. Oh well. The whole point was to understand how to not cause offense and I’m only interested in talking about that in this thread. I find it interesting.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
What a bunch of defensive, prickly, deflecting people. Holy crap.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you seem to have provided sudfficient bona fides to claim membership in this club. 
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
I asked Liberal at least once or twice since it appeared he was the one that took offense and I have yet to receive an answer.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should type less and read more. I have answered you.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
It certainly is the case that some opinions might be inherently offensive. For example, if someone stated that “The real objects of our pity should be the children of atheists, and not the atheists themselves because it is their children who must suffer the consequences of being deprived of a well rounded education,” there’s probably no way of expressing that opinion without offending the atheists whom it disclaims to offend. But I think, personally, that most offense comes from context. If you have just been called brain damaged, mentally retarded, and dangerous, it would be untactful for someone to follow that up with a theory that your shorctomings stem from a vestigial defect in the reptilian brain. At the very least, look over what you’re saying for metaphors and loaded terms. You should realize that theories about defective brains recapitulate theories of the past from racists opinining about the intelligence of negroes. And be prepared to back up what you say. I cited a world renowned neurological researcher who said that limbic brain activity could be as effectively used to argue for rather than against the existence of God. But most important, just remember that you’re talking to people — at least here on the Dope — who are your intellectual peers. Atheist and theist alike, we all deserve a default position of respect, until and unless we present ourselves as irrational dogmatists on either side.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, intellectual peer: stop defaming me. I didn’t say anything about brain damage, mental retardation, or vestigial defects. I posited that it may be an evolutionary struggle that we may all be in the throes of, myself included. I also referenced a struggle of my own in suspecting that perhaps there is a god. I deserve the respect of not being implicitly called a racist or of having made a vaguely racist remark, which I did not.
For you to change what I’ve said is offensive and paints you as an irrational dogmatist.
As for the answer to my question, it appears that your answer is that some opinions may simply be inherently offensive so there’s no way to express them without causing offense. Very well then. As for me, if religious people feel that my “atheist” (which I’m not, as I’ve said before and you keep ignoring) children are not being educated properly, I understand where they’re coming from. I used to be one of them.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, you seem to have provided sudfficient bona fides to claim membership in this club.
[/QUOTE]
It’s almost too good to be true. 
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Well, you seem to have provided sudfficient bona fides to claim membership in this club.
[/QUOTE]
Right, because everything is a wash. And you’ve yet to apologize. Never mind.
[QUOTE=Liberal]
Maybe you should type less and read more. I have answered you.
[/QUOTE]
Maybe you should stop defaming me by misrepresenting what I’ve said and stick to the topic. You didn’t answer me before I posted that.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Hey, intellectual peer: stop defaming me. I didn’t say anything about brain damage, mental retardation, or vestigial defects. I posited that it may be an evolutionary struggle that we may all be in the throes of, myself included. I also referenced a struggle of my own in suspecting that perhaps there is a god. I deserve the respect of not being implicitly called a racist or of having made a vaguely racist remark, which I did not.
For you to change what I’ve said is offensive and paints you as an irrational dogmatist.
As for the answer to my question, it appears that your answer is that some opinions may simply be inherently offensive so there’s no way to express them without causing offense. Very well then.
[/QUOTE]
You know, I’m not at all sure that you have the wherewithal to participate, here.
These discussions are not merely a series of one-on-one exchanges that happen to be grouped electronically, they are broader discussions in which each poster may refer to the statements of multiple other posters when establishing or defending any point. Every time any poster responding to you makes a broader reference to the overall discussion, you get your back up and accuse them of attacking you for things you have not said. That is not what is going on, here, and you do your arguments (and our perception of you) no good by acting as though every general comment was aimed at your statements.
I will also point out that despite your complaint that no one has answered your question about advancing an opinion respectfully, cosmosdan, Liberal, and I have all done so, even if you choose to ignore what we have posted.
Prickly much?
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
And you’ve yet to apologize.
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry that you have so much trouble understanding other people when they post.
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
You know, I’m not at all sure that you have the wherewithal to participate, here.
These discussions are not merely a series of one-on-one exchanges that happen to be grouped electronically, they are broader discussions in which each poster may refer to the statements of multiple other posters when establishing or defending any point. Every time any poster responding to you makes a broader reference to the overall discussion, you get your back up and accuse them of attacking you for things you have not said. That is not what is going on, here, and you do your arguments (and our perception of you) no good by acting as though every general comment was aimed at your statements.
I will also point out that despite your complaint that no one has answered your question about advancing an opinion respectfully, cosmosdan, Liberal, and I have all done so, even if you choose to ignore what we have posted.
Prickly much?
[/QUOTE]
I noted that **cosmosdan **offered his view on that. In fact, I did so more than once. **Liberal **has only just NOW done so.
As for you, I’ve already pointed out that you quoted me, made no reference to anyone else, and then repeatedly said YOU in that reply to my post only to follow it up by saying you weren’t referring to me. To which your answer is that I’m inadequate to participate in these discussions because I take general comments as directed at me when I’m quoted, nobody else is referenced in the reply, and YOU is used over and over. LOL
Denial much?
[QUOTE=tomndebb]
I am sorry that you have so much trouble understanding other people when they post.
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry that you are unwilling to see how your post came across. Nonetheless, I stated therein that I’d take your word for it. Pretty generous of me, I think. You’re welcome.
Incidentally, it’s pretty hilarious that in a thread about the defensiveness of people about god, the religious people are accusing me of being defensive. LOL Classic deflection. It’s almost too good to be true. 
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
My answer to your question that you posed about reevaluating my theory was literally the first WORD of my post with which I replied.
[/QUOTE]
I stand corrected. I missed the Yes while reading the Furthermore, my mistake.
You did? OKay. I’ll look again.
All part of understanding belief systems and standards of evidence. In this case I’m trying to decide if you have the same standards for your own beliefs as you do for those you disagree with. That’s why I asked “Is reading the Bible evidence that God exists, since that diety is mentioned so often?”
Surprisingly enough other posters have their own interests. If you expect them to respond to what you are interested in then at times you might need to return the favor. The way I see it you are getting a little prickly here. No biggie.
It’s a good idea to come to some consensus of terms for communications sake. Since most of the people on the board don’t see religion as referring only to the fundies perhaps you could be more specific in your terms.
That’s not one of the terms that came to mind, but then again, we’ve just met. 
Already addressed. Insisting on talking about only what you’re interested in may limit the discussion but it’s your choice.
[QUOTE=9thFloor]
Incidentally, it’s pretty hilarious that in a thread about the defensiveness of people about god, the religious people are accusing me of being defensive. LOL Classic deflection. It’s almost too good to be true.
[/QUOTE]
Or perhaps it’s just good and true. Depends on the perspective doesn’t it?