quote:Originally posted by King of Men: In fact, theists can hurt us, and do, every day. Read, for example, this. One way of getting oblivious bullies notice that others exist, and make room for them, is to shove an elbow up their nose. It's hard to ignore someone who is hitting you.
I did, and I find his brand of bullshite worse than the majority of religious ones I have been exposed to, to be honest.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's very interesting, since in fact the link is religious 'bullshite'. It's just not the Christian variant.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: That's very sad. So you think the relative in the fake ash scenario is not harmed?
We're not talking about the ashes of a human being. We're talking about crackers.
Neither is Dags, in the fake ashes scenario.
But he is, because somewhere in his hypothetical there exists actual human ashes. In the actual scenario, there are only crackers.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I'm not even sure I understand where you're going here. Would it have been better/worse/equivalent for PZ to ask someone to go relieve themselves on ground zero? Still just sounds like someone being a benign jerk.
I was attempting to show that the emotional attachment some Americans feel toward Ground Zero was equivalent to the attachment some Catholics feel for the eucharist.
As it would be crude and disrespectful to find someone taking a dump on stones from ground zero, claiming, "They're only stones!" it's equivalently disrespectful to treat the eucharist in an equivalent manner, saying, 'It's just a cracker.'
Obviously, it means something more to some people.
Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Not necessarily.
Showing respect for peoples' right to believe/attach emotion to what they like, I think, is the important thing.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Do you think that showing respect for what other people believe/attach emotion to is valuable to society?
Not across the board either, it has to weighted against other things that are valuable to society.
For example, I happen to think that the cartoons of Mohamed in Denmark, the mockery of religion in 'The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy', and films such as Dogma though all potentially offensive (indeed, proven to be offensive to what specific people believe/attach emotion to in at least the first and latter cases) perform a valuable role in society.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: To bring this full circle, I contend that my ash-gathering-and-kitty-littering would be harmful to the ash-scatterer even if I only (successfully) pretended to gather the ashes, and actually used the remains of last night's charcoal for my kitty litter. Edit: this is not the principle I harm I see occurring if PZM successfully gets a consecrated host. But it is the harm I think he is intentionally setting out to commit.
I was wondering about that too, the people that are sending death threats and anti-Semite slurs probably would not wait for a thorough investigation if PZ Myers indeed simply *pretended* to obtain a Chunk of Christ. Indeed, such an investigation would be inherently difficult short of interrogating each and every Catholic receiving a cracker and attempting to ascertain if they lied about consuming it and instead sent it off by FedEx or UPS.
Interestingly, it would illustrate PZ Myers's point even more clearly if he used a "fake" Chunk of Christ rather than a "real" Chunk of Christ, so yes, I do wonder about this scenario.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, at the most superficial, he is currently trying to provoke a disproportionate response, illustrating the level of anger, emotional attachment, and protectiveness certain Catholics feel toward what his core audience sees as well, simply a cracker.
Now, if he wanted to ramp up the response even more, he could simply get a cracker via a Catholic. No doubt that would work to dial it up a notch. But imagine if he simply got a box of crackers, pretended or even implied that it was a real Chunk of Christ, provoked a major response, and *then* revealed that the crackers were just fake.
He would get the same response until he revealed the truth, but it would be seen by his core audience as even more disproportional. i.e. "Not only are these people overreacting over a cracker, but its not even a "real" Eucharist! They can't even tell the difference" There is also the bonus that he doesn't have to get a Catholic in trouble if the source was revealed.
Thats a superficial analysis without taking into account what detailed response he may be trying to get from the non-religious, but it suffices to illustrate what I am brainstorming/hypothesizing about the situation.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:But imagine if he simply got a box of crackers, pretended or even implied that it was a real Chunk of Christ, provoked a major response, and *then* revealed that the crackers were just fake.
it would underscore even more what a jerk he is if he did that - it would make it clear that his only interest is in pissing people off, and that he's a liar to boot.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
From your POV indeed, but you have to accept that other people may view his motives differently.
Of course, you don't even have to accept that. Even if his only motive is to be a jerk and cause pain to Catholics, I think this scenario would be even more effective at accomplishing just that. Whats better than getting people fired over a cracker? Getting people fired over a "fake" cracker.
posted
You do realize that was a question based on the motive presented in the previous sentence, right? I'll remove a space to make it painfully clear.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Myers does have a clear reason for what he says and does: he actually believes that his description of desecration is aimed at puncturing the power of a belief that needs puncturing, and that this is so important that it needs to be confronted in the style of a sort of dramatic intervention.
Now, you and I both clearly agree that nothing so important is at stake here that it’s worth even hurting anyone’s feelings. But I think you would have to agree that it’s not always wrong in principle to hurt someone’s feelings by a demonstrative act: sometimes the act is justified by the importance of expressing the cause (for instance, burning a communist flag during Poland’s independence movement probably sincerely hurt the feelings of dedicated communists and Soviets, but it would have been a powerful and important symbolic act as well).
In that sense, what’s going on here is a judgment call on what measures are worth it for what cause, not a violation of any absolute principle against hurting feelings by symbolic acts.
Read the rest of that article to get a more complete idea of why some of us may feel that what he's doing may be defensible, from his perspective, even if it goes beyond what we personally may feel appropriate.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I will agree, I'm not sure I see the harm it does Catholics for someone to desecrate the host. I do see the offense it causes, and if I were Catholic (in addition to being offended) I would worry about the harm that person was causing their own soul. But I haven't seen any Catholic say or imply that this person is actually harming the body of Christ in any way, so I don't know what harm they could say they were getting from it ... unless you want to call offense "harm". Perhaps that could be better explained?
I don't know that I respect all religious symbols and objects that are precious to other people, but I do respect other people and their feelings. This is probably why I don't worry about disrespecting Greek gods and goddesses - there aren't really any people living that I'm going to offend by doing so.
I don't understand why this simple respect for other people's feelings wouldn't be enough to prevent decent people from mocking or desecrating things that are sacred to others, with an intent to annoy or hurt or anger them. And if you aren't a decent person, well, you don't deserve my respect either. Not that you deserve death threats - but if you spit on me, I might be justified spitting on you.
(No I wouldn't. That would be against my religion. )
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is probably why I don't worry about disrespecting Greek gods and goddesses - there aren't really any people living that I'm going to offend by doing so.
Wrong. (Scroll down to the second post and third posts.) And I may note in passing that his religion is a lot more appealing to me than Dag's or kmb's. It is in the same category as Lisa's, in that it makes an appeal to historical evidence. I do not agree with either Lisa or comrade Hicks on what the historical evidence shows; but it is a point that can in principle be settled, if only by constructing a time machine and going back to see. Religion that depends on internal states of mind, indistinguishable from hallucinations, is much more hateful to me.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I do not agree with either Lisa or comrade Hicks on what the historical evidence shows; but it is a point that can in principle be settled, if only by constructing a time machine and going back to see.
How does this not apply to my belief as well?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, as I understand it, the reason you believe the Bible over the Elder Edda is not a weighing of which witnesses are more reliable, who has an axe to grind, and so on; but rather, you have prayed and meditated, and rest your belief ultimately on the resulting state of mind. In the case of kmb, it's even worse; as I understand her, you could go back and demonstrate that the crucifixion did not in fact take place, and it would not matter to her. So my hierarchy of appeal-to-evidence would go something like this:
Brad Hicks, Lisa: This is the account given in [Source X]. I find it credible because (Lisa) there is massive error-checking in the copying procedure or (Hicks) it is attested by multiple independent witnesses.
Dagonee, BlackBlade: This is the account given in [Source X]. I find it credible because I have tested the prayer methods outlined in it, and they produce [Y state of mind].
kmb: This is the account given in [Source X]. It doesn't matter whether it's credible or not; I believe [whatever it is kmb actually believes] anyway.
posted
Ah, so you are speaking out of complete ignorance about why and how I formed my beliefs, then.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am speaking from what I have read of your explanations on this forum. That is my only source of information about you. If you would like to correct my misapprehensions, the 'Reply' button is right over there. If you would like to continue flaming me, the wild Internet is that-away. Take your choice.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are wrong. Man up and admit it. Or just stop making false statements about me.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You are wrong. Man up and admit it. Or just stop making false statements about me.
KOM said this at the beginning of his post:
quote: Because, as I understand it, the reason you believe the Bible over the Elder Edda is not a weighing of which witnesses are more reliable, who has an axe to grind, and so on
So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information. I know it would educate me.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: So you get to make inaccurate statements about me and then create an implied burden on me to reply and correct your error?
You correct him, and then everyone sees that he was wrong, and his credibility goes down a bit.
You don't, and it looks like you are tacitly admitting that his description is accurate, if unflatteringly phrased.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information.
KoM didn't explain where he got that erroneous understanding from. So I don't know what error it is I need to correct other than the conclusion - and I've corrected that already.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:You correct him, and then everyone sees that he was wrong, and his credibility goes down a bit.
You don't, and it looks like you are tacitly admitting that his description is accurate, if unflatteringly phrased.
I don't understand this attitude. I corrected him already.
What you seem to be suggesting here is that one can blackmail someone else into writing a statement about what and why they believe simply by making stuff up about that person. I don't know about you, but that would be a lengthy task for me.
And I clearly can't just summarize it, since I'm dealing with someone who claims to have formed this opinion based on my posts here.
KoM is wrong about my beliefs. They are just as historically verifiable as the other sets of beliefs he listed in that post. The matter is clarified.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:So if he is wrong, and has misunderstood it, it would be nice if you could please correct him with the accurate information.
KoM didn't explain where he got that erroneous understanding from. So I don't know what error it is I need to correct other than the conclusion - and I've corrected that already.
I have been told by many a Christian that they believe because they prayed and they felt they received an answer. I don't think it would be a large jump to guess that you, a Christian, might feel the same way.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have been told by many a Christian that they believe because they prayed and they felt they received an answer. I don't think it would be a large jump to guess that you, a Christian, might feel the same way.
But it would be a large jump to name me by name as feeling the same way based on that "guess" in order to label my beliefs hateful to you.
I know an atheist who wants to put "religionists" in camps to forcibly reeducate them. Is it a large jump to guess that you, an atheist, might feel the same way?
My beliefs and the reasons I hold them are complex, based a lot of different things. I'm not going to be goaded into writing a lengthy response because KoM can't keep his reasons for condemning theists correctly categorize by name.
The same settle-in-principle method KoM lauds for Hicks and Lisa also applies to my beliefs. The end.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: What you seem to be suggesting here is that one can blackmail someone else into writing a statement about what and why they believe simply by making stuff up about that person. I don't know about you, but that would be a lengthy task for me.
If a poster gets in the habit of making things up, then soon, no one care what that poster wirtes, because everyone knows they make stuff up.
But yes, KOM's claim would have been stronger had he quoted the bit he was thinking of for those beliefs.
quote:And I clearly can't just summarize it, since I'm dealing with someone who claims to have formed this opinion based on my posts here.
Maybe KOM's misrememebring or misinterpreting something. Maybe you have expressed yourself poorly. Saying "You're wrong, but I can't put into a post why" is pretty weak.
quote:KoM is wrong about my beliefs. They are just as historically verifiable as the other sets of beliefs he listed in that post. The matter is clarified.
Oh, I guess you can summarize.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Maybe KOM's misrememebring or misinterpreting something. Maybe you have expressed yourself poorly. Saying "You're wrong, but I can't put into a post why" is pretty weak.
Except I did post "why" in at least as great a detail as anything KoM said.
What do I need to do, hack Hatrack so the letters will be blinking and take up half the screen: "The same settle-in-principle method KoM lauds for Hicks and Lisa also applies to my beliefs."
The principle objection I have with your posts on this subject is that you are allowing untrue statements about a person to place a greater explanatory burden on the one whose views are being misstated than the one doing the misstatement.
KoM said X. I said not X. Why assume the one who spoke first is correct because I didn't say "not X, because of A, B, and C."
quote:Oh, I guess you can summarize.
That's not a summary. That's a conclusory statement. They are different things.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not have time to search through Hatrack threads more than a year old, so I am quoting from memory here. But I recall that we were at one point discussing the Bible as historical evidence, and I gave the Elder Edda as a source likewise containing some historical facts verifiable from the evidence - indeed, the existence of a tribal migration from north of the Black Sea to southern Scandinavia is more strongly supported than the existence of a Jewish heretic preacher named Joshua - and some unverifiable (by current data; a time machine is different) supernatural events, like the magic attributed to Odin. I then asked why you believe the Bible, but not the Eddas. As I recall your reply, it was that you had prayed and meditated, and had received an answer from / made contact with / communed with the Biblical god.
I may be misremembering this. I may have misunderstood your reply. Your reply may have been incomplete. I do not think any of these scenarios needs to involve an accusation that I am lying or making things up.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hang on, perhaps I see the problem. You are correct that the events surrounding the crucifixion could be verified by time machine. But that is not the distinction I am drawing between you and Lisa. I am referring to the reason you believe in your respective sources absent that time machine. Lisa believes in the efficiency of error-correcting codes. You, to the best of my knowledge, believe in the efficiency of prayer as a method for divining truth. In the absence of a time machine, Lisa's "verifiable in principle, believed without support from mental states" appeals to me more than your "verifiable in principle, believed due to prayer", which in turn I prefer to kmb's "unverifiable, believed just because".
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are correct that the events surrounding the crucifixion could be verified by time machine. But that is not the distinction I am drawing between you and Lisa. I am referring to the reason you believe in your respective sources absent that time machine. Lisa believes in the efficiency of error-correcting codes. You, to the best of my knowledge, believe in the efficiency of prayer as a method for divining truth.
I would really, really like it if you would just stop talking about why I believe what I believe, KoM.
There are grains of truth in what you say, but it's not correct. The errors are significant and go to the heart of your criticism of my belief system. Explaining it would be enormously time consuming, and the only purpose it would serve is to give you a way to more precisely define why my beliefs are hateful to you.
You think I'm wrong, regardless of the details. Fine. Say that all you want. But stop saying "Dagonee believes X because of Y." Because you're almost always wrong when you do that.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KOM, I believe you are conflating Dag with another poster. I think BlackBlade, although my memory of who was who in the Elder Edda conversation might be off. But whether mine is or not, I'm quite sure yours is.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have certainly had this conversation with BlackBlade, yes. But I believe I have also had it with Dagonee.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Explaining it would be enormously time consuming, and the only purpose it would serve is to give you a way to more precisely define why my beliefs are hateful to you.
Well, Dag, if you are unable or unwilling to explain why you believe something, then you'll just have to deal with me making a best guess based on what you are willing to say. My best guess, at the moment, is that you don't actually have anything better than kmb's "just because", but are unwilling to admit it. Such is life.
Now that my memory has been jogged, I recall that this is also where our previous conversation along these lines ended up: You stated that you were unwilling to explain any further, that it was too complex for me to understand, and that the conversation was over as far as you were concerned. I drew the same conclusion I outlined above, and the thread ended. There may or may not have been a degree of huffiness involved.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, Dag, if you are unable or unwilling to explain why you believe something, then you'll just have to deal with me making a best guess based on what you are willing to say.
Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Especially in light of an explicit statement that the guess you have made is wrong.
I can come up with a best guess as to why you can't accept that. It's unflattering.
Should I share it, or should I just accept that I don't know why you won't do that?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, the problem with debating this with you (well one problem) is that you tend to consider "able to be understood by KoM" as a condition of existence.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:KoM, the problem with debating this with you (well one problem) is that you tend to consider "able to be understood by KoM" as a condition of existence.
That is untrue. But I do consider "some sort of evidence exists" to be a condition of my believing in an entity. You have repeatedly, over several threads each stretching into hundreds of posts, passive-aggressively refused to give even the slightest hint of any such evidence.
Let me give an analogy: Suppose someone wanted to convince me of the existence of Great Cthulhu. "Well," I say, "why do you believe in Great Cthulhu?" And the reply is "Your mind is incapabale of understanding the full glory and terror that is a Great Old One; the merest glimpse of that entity will make you screamingly mad." "All right," I reply, "I shall do my best to avoid getting any glimpses. What places should I avoid? Oh, and you didn't answer my question." Lather, rinse, repeat. Whether or not I can understand the full extent of Great Cthulhu is not relevant to my conviction in its existence. Don't blather on about madness; show me the city R'lyeh, waiting to rise again from the oceans. Then we can discuss the extent of my understanding. Existence first.
quote:Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Why should I? If it is a subject I care about at all, even if only enough to post about it here as a means of procrastination, then I make my best guess to the facts in light of the evidence available. If you choose not to make all the evidence available, that's your business; I see no reason for that to constrain what subjects I may or may not have an opinion on. If I'm wrong, meh, whatever.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But, KoM, I don't want to convince you of anything. I want to contradict you when I think you are wrong - if only to be on record - but I don't care a bit what you believe.
The matter of your "Existence first" rule is of no consequence to me. You can make whatever rules you want to make for what you believe. Don't expect me to have to play by your rules, though.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why do you have to make a guess? Why can't you just accept that I don't owe you an explanation and, in the absence of that explanation, you are simply ignorant of my reasons?
Why should I? If it is a subject I care about at all, even if only enough to post about it here as a means of procrastination, then I make my best guess to the facts in light of the evidence available. If you choose not to make all the evidence available, that's your business; I see no reason for that to constrain what subjects I may or may not have an opinion on. If I'm wrong, meh, whatever.
Think about this for a minute KoM. You are engage in motive speculation against someone. You then demand that he provide evidence that you believe will support that speculation. Do you not see the glaring problem?
Posts: 148 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But, KoM, I don't want to convince you of anything. I want to contradict you when I think you are wrong - if only to be on record - but I don't care a bit what you believe.
Yes, I know, you've made this clear at tedious length. Generally, though, to show that someone is wrong, a better claim than "you don't understand" is required. What's more, all your actual contradictions somehow manage to take the form of a defense for believing in your god; all, of course, completely without any intent to convince anyone of anything. I must say I think you protest too much.
What's more, not only do you not give a reason for me to believe; you aren't even able to give any reason for why you believe, unless you count "just because" as a reason. I note, in the previous thread we had on this subject, I repeatedly made it clear that I wasn't seeking a convincing argument, I was seeking the argument that had convinced you. You had none to give.
quote:You then demand that he provide evidence that you believe will support that speculation.
I demand nothing. Dag can do as he likes. I am merely saying that if he does X, I will continue to do Y.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do not believe they are untrue. So my statement is actually "I will continue to speak truth as I see it." Which will be true whether or not you say anything at all.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
