posted
I would say "what Ron believes are the claims of the Bible". I do not believe the Bible makes those claims.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Changing one basic genus to another requires that whole new genetic information structures be added to the genome. You do not get that merely by piecemeal editing of the existing genome.
Why not?
You don't have to get it by piece meal editing of the existing genome. Point mutations are not the only type of mutations out there. We have observed many different types of mutations processes in nature that could reasonably lead to genus, even phylum level changes. One of the most common types of mutation is replication of an extra full chromosome. Cells exchange genes, even fuse together. Fungi, for example, are known to take large segments of genetic material from other organisms. Symbiotic organisms can pool their genomes to become a single complex organism. We know and have observed many types of "mutation" that lead to an increase in complexity. This isn't just speculation, these phenomena and more have all been observed.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Surely you jest, Tom. I’m having a hard time believing you said
quote: I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.
Are you sure you don’t want to rephrase that?
Let’s do a little fill-in-the-blank game.
I believe the vast majority of ________ are __________.
Now fill in the blanks with you favorite whatever. Someone might say:
I believe the vast majority of blacks are not as smart as Caucasians. Or: I believe the vast majority of Black slaves were better off and happier in slavery. Or: I believe the vast majority of gay men are loaded with pedophilic tendencies Or I believe the vast majority of politicians are liars. Oh wait a minute, that one is true. Bad example.
Anyway, I think you get what I mean. All those statements reek of the P word which is much too dirty a word to write out in a public forum. (besides which I can’t spell it anyway) And nobody likes being accused of being P*&%*#%*.
Someone, maybe even me for instance, might even say something like :
quote: Atheists deny there is a God because there is some abhorrent behavior they don’t want to give up, and rationalizing away God makes it easier to live with themselves.
Which you were right in calling
quote: something phenomenally stupid.
If I wasn’t deliberately being over the top with that crack about atheists, just to show how stupid it is, I’d be ashamed I said it.
Posts: 71 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Let’s do a little fill-in-the-blank game.
I'm no expert on logical fallicies, but wouldn't this fall under false equivalence? You're taking a statement someone made, removing key words, replacing them with completely unrelated key words to make unrelated new statements which are absolutely ridiculous, and using that to imply that the original statement is ridiculous. Your last statement, which you jokingly claim to be a bad example, is actually a good example of why this fill-in-the-blank game doesn't make sense.
Also,
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Surely you jest, Tom. I’m having a hard time believing you said
quote: I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.
posted
iglee: I suspect you will find that for Tom's definition of irrational, a majority of believers fall into that category, as he sees it. I'm sure he feels he's considered the gravity of the statement and stands by it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: iglee: I suspect you will find that for Tom's definition of irrational, a majority of believers fall into that category, as he sees it. I'm sure he feels he's considered the gravity of the statement and stands by it.
I may be in the minority, but I always looked at 'irrational' as a descriptor as opposed to a put-down. Much like 'ignorant'.
I am incredibly ignorant about a number of different subjects. And I am particularly irrational when it comes to the subject of women and romance. Those words are both merely describing me and my actions. And while they can sound like insults aren't necessarily meant to be so.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
iglee, I believe that, for Tom, saying that the majority of believers are irrational is more like saying that the majority of black people are darker. The irrationality is a function of the belief (or the other way 'round). I don't recommend trying to change his mind except by behaving in an (otherwise) rational way. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying it in a general sense like "the majority of believers are irrational" is hard not to take as a put-down. It would be easy to add "in that their belief in God is not based on such and such definition of rationality" and avoid all the misunderstanding.
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason.
I would probably word it differently. I would say that most believers believe first and foremost for emotional reasons rather than logical ones. Which amounts to the same thing as what Tom said. Do you see my statement as a prejudiced statement?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, you are the first evolution proponent in this whole thread to actually attempt to make a logical argument. It was a decent attempt, by suggesting that mutations could eventually produce whole new genes to be added to the genome, by adopting portions of the genomes of other species. However, have you noticed that what you are really saying is that genomes do genetic engineering on themselves, spontaneously, with no outside help or guidance? With all due respect, I do not believe that is reasonable.
So where did the supposed dinosaur precursors of birds come up with feathers and hollow bones? What other genus did they raid to acquire those genes? Where did the supposed first mammal come up with the genes that allowed it to be warm-blooded, when supposedly that trait had never existed before in any genus up to that point?
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:However, have you noticed that what you are really saying is that genomes do genetic engineering on themselves, spontaneously, with no outside help or guidance? With all due respect, I do not believe that is reasonable.
I don't know why you think its unreasonable. It's indisputable. It has been observed in nature repeatedly by numerous mechanisms. This isn't a theory, its an observation. Plane and simple.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would probably word it differently. I would say that most believers believe first and foremost for emotional reasons rather than logical ones. Which amounts to the same thing as what Tom said. Do you see my statement as a prejudiced statement?
I would say that most atheists (at least the outspoken ones) disbelieve first and foremost for emotional reasons rather than logical ones. That much is evident in the passion with which the argue.
Of course my saying this about "most" atheists is purely speculation, extrapolating from my experience with atheists. On the other hand, I've observed Tom Davidson's atheism and the reasoning he used to defend it evolve for a decade now so I'm not blindly speculating about him. I am more than confident that his atheism arose first and foremost for emotional reasons and that he has with time build a reasoned edifice to defend what he feels to be true. In this sense, he differs little from the religious.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit, you are the first evolution proponent in this whole thread to actually attempt to make a logical argument.
That probably because I'm the only one in this argument who knows enough modern molecular biology to make the argument. The rate at which our understanding in the field is growing is truly phenomenal. No one can keep up with everything that's being learned.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:you are the first evolution proponent in this whole thread to actually attempt to make a logical argument.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my question. When you do, I'll give it a shot.
---------
quote:So I will just come out and say it clearly: The statement, “I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.” is an example of prejudice.
You are wrong. You're actually wrong in a variety of ways, in fact; far more "prejudicial" would be saying something like, "you personally must be irrational because you are a believer."
While it's off-topic here, I would be happy to talk with you in another thread (or over email) about the ways in which most religious believers tend to be irrational and/or delusional on the subject of their belief. (It has nothing, by the way, to do with believing things for emotional reasons.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:That probably because I'm the only one in this argument who knows enough modern molecular biology to make the argument.
Well, I think there are a few of us with at least the level of knowledge required to make the argument you made. It's just tricky trying to figure out which line of argument might possibly be compelling enough to Ron to be worthy of a non-dismissive response. Well, at least a less dismissive response.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I think there are a few of us with at least the level of knowledge required to make the argument you made.
Sorry if I offended anyone by underestimating their expertise in the area. I don't know peoples background well enough to know who is and who is not likely to know any molecular biology. This field is changing fast enough that I wouldn't fault anyone for not knowing much outside their particular niche.
I'm pretty sure that unless God himself comes down, knocks Ron on the head and tells him all life on earth evolved through natural processes, Ron will find no argument for evolution convincing. And even if he heard it from God's own mouth, I expect he'd put up a fair argument before conceding he was wrong.
[ January 06, 2011, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Let’s do a little fill-in-the-blank game.
I'm no expert on logical fallicies, but wouldn't this fall under false equivalence? You're taking a statement someone made, removing key words, replacing them with completely unrelated key words to make unrelated new statements which are absolutely ridiculous, and using that to imply that the original statement is ridiculous. Your last statement, which you jokingly claim to be a bad example, is actually a good example of why this fill-in-the-blank game doesn't make sense.
It's not a false equivalency, because no equivalence is established between the terms being discussed. The fallacy presented here is, I think, argumentum ad lapidem (argument against stone) which is just a fancy way of saying it is a dismissal of the original argument as ridiculous without addressing the terms employed by the argument.
So, for instance, an argument that states: "Communism is a morally bankrupt enterprise," is dismissed because the respondent holds all arguments in favor of political systems to be ridiculous. The counter-argument being: "one can't seriously characterize communism in any meaningful way."
It also presents itself as a false dichotomy and an argument from ignorance: "this statement is false because it cannot be proven true" That's why he listed a number of other statements that can be informally defeated by an appeal to incredulity.
iglee:
quote: So I will just come out and say it clearly: The statement, “I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.” is an example of prejudice.
No it is not. The interpretation of the statement as being prejudicial depends upon the application of the terms in play, specifically the term "irrational." You are not interpreting the use of this term correctly, and moreover you are likely applying a great deal of your own prejudice in regards to that statement.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: There's also the fact that this has largely been done before, and it will just result in dismissals and moving goalposts.
In addition, there is only Ron arguing one side, and it's unseemly to gang up on lone crazy people.
I would appreciate it if we did not needlessly disparage other posters, no matter how much we disagree with them or earnestly belive their mental states to be suspect. Ron is staying within the TOS, this comment is not.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:No it is not. The interpretation of the statement as being prejudicial depends upon the application of the terms in play, specifically the term "irrational."
In so far as the Tom is judging people with whom he has little or no interaction to be "irrational", it is, virtually by definition prejudice. It is a judgment made without careful examination of the facts.
If Tom were arguing that most (or even all) belief in God was irrational, that would be a different issue. But he was not expressing an opinion about particular opinions or beliefs, but a sweeping opinion of the majority of people who hold them -- that is prejudice.
I suppose you could define an "irrational person" to be any person who has a single irrational opinion or belief, in which the distinction I made above becomes irrelevant. By that definition, however, all people are irrational render the entire discussion irrelevant. You might as well be saying "I believe the vast majority of believers have two eyes, a nose and 23 chromosomes."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by iglee: I’m not sure I follow your reasoning, Sean, so maybe my fill-in-the-blank thing is, as you say “absolutely ridiculous” maybe not. Whatever.
Well, the point I was making was that I didn't follow your reasoning.
quote:Originally posted by iglee: So I will just come out and say it clearly: The statement, “I believe the vast majority of believers are irrational.” is an example of prejudice.
Now, is it an example of prejudice or not? Yes or No
You can't know this until you know why he came to that conclusion.
Edit: Also, you misread, because I didn't say your fill-in-the-blank game was ridiculous; I said each of the new statements you created was ridiculous. Which they were, as you intended.
quote:No it is not. The interpretation of the statement as being prejudicial depends upon the application of the terms in play, specifically the term "irrational."
In so far as the Tom is judging people with whom he has little or no interaction to be "irrational", it is, virtually by definition prejudice. It is a judgment made without careful examination of the facts.
If Tom were arguing that most (or even all) belief in God was irrational, that would be a different issue.
Why? Because saying: "people who believe in God are irrational," and "belief in God is irrational" are so different? Again, you are ignoring the terms: "irrational," doesn't mean raving lunatic, nor does it even mean illogical- certainly it does not mean stupid. Implications to that effect were clearly not intended in his post, or he would have made them. I would make them, Tom wouldn't.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Because saying: "people who believe in God are irrational," and "belief in God is irrational" are so different?
Yes. Using a term to describe a person and using it to describe and idea are very different. Using a term to describe a large group of people, who have only one thing in common, is (virtually by definition) prejudice. It is judging people based on extremely limited information.
Whether or not irrational means stupid or raving lunatic or has any other negative connotation is essentially irrelevant. If I said "almost all religious people are kind and generous", that would also be prejudice, a judgement made without adequate data to support.
As I said, unless by "irrational person" you mean any person who has at least one irrational opinion or belief, then Tom's statement about "almost all religious people" is fundamentally different from the statement "almost all religious beliefs are irrational". Tom's statement is prejudiced because the only thing he knows about "almost all religious people" is that they have atleast one belief he considers irrationa. Almost all people hold hold some irrational opinions and beliefs. Singling out religious people, as Tom does, implies that they differ in this respect from non-religious people. That's prejudice.
[ January 07, 2011, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Isn't prejudice irrational?
Not necessarily, presuming that you define prejudice to mean making judgements or forming opinion with based on insufficient or unreliable data. There are many many situations in life that require a person to make choices and judge things without sufficient data. In these cases, its completely rational to base ones judgement on the data one has, however limited it may be. It's certainly better than ignoring the data altogether.
I would, however, agree that it is irrational to place a high level of confidence on an opinion formed based on limited or unreliable data. Since this accurately describe most of what we call "prejudice", I think it's fair to say that most prejudices are irrational.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You need to examine your own heart a lot more closely before you presume to lecture me about humility and open-mindedness.
Hey ron, this might be the best advice you have ever given that you, more than anyone else on the entire forum, need to do for yourself.
quote:Why? Because saying: "people who believe in God are irrational," and "belief in God is irrational" are so different? Again, you are ignoring the terms: "irrational," doesn't mean raving lunatic, nor does it even mean illogical- certainly it does not mean stupid. Implications to that effect were clearly not intended in his post, or he would have made them. I would make them, Tom wouldn't.
Setting aside the fact that in order to have a case of prejudice one doesn't have to be experiencing the most frothing feelings of contempt (raving lunatic), but only milder feelings of prejudgment - usually negative...it's prejudice because without having some idea arrived at through valid means* of how all of those people came to believe in God, it's prejudice. Pretty straightforward, really. Not that it's a huge thing, it's just a bit of prejudice.
*I just know, the only ways they could've come to believe in God are..., and I've met enough believers to know don't count as valid reasons. They certainly wouldn't when making, say, a judgment about the rationality of atheists as a whole.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Tom's statement is prejudiced because the only thing he knows about "almost all religious people" is that they have atleast one belief he considers irrationa.
Technically, we know a lot more than that.
We can simply go to a site like this to find out that "almost all religious people are theists", or that "almost all religious people belong to religions founded over 100 years ago", or that "almost all religious people are not Jewish." All these facts are not based on the definition of being religious.
It should be emphasized, less for you than for iglee, that the definition of prejudice is clearly not based on simply using one term to describe a group of people with only one thing in common, but also on having inadequate evidence to support that one term.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by iglee: Isn't prejudice irrational?
No. Prejudice based on insufficient information interpreted in a fallacious manner is irrational. Prejudice based on well interpreted personal or theoretical experience is not irrational.
For instance, European anti-semitism is historically mostly irrational, whereas prejudice against the Roma is typically not. This doesn't imply a value judgement about Jews or Gypsies, it is accounted for by the two different groups having widely different cultural backgrounds, both having been the subjects of a great deal of prejudice. So, to make that clear, Jews have been hated for reasons which are not rational (as causes of hatred), such as their philosophy of life, attitudes to family and government, religion, etc. Whereas the Roma have typically been hated for perfectly rational reasons: being poor and uneducated, being widely involved in crime, having a disregard for personal property due to a nomadic heritage. It's not *right* to hate gypsies, and it is wrong not to work to stop this cycle, but they are hated for rational reasons (well, sometimes, but I'm just addressing the big picture).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just know, the only ways they could've come to believe in God are..., and I've met enough believers to know don't count as valid reasons.
It's worth noting that believers are pretty regularly surveyed to a fair degree of statistical accuracy. And where your typical believer might have met and conversed with a handful of atheists about secular morality, I can guarantee you -- and, in fact, have evidence to back up the claim -- that your typical atheist is comparatively more thoroughly steeped in the culture and beliefs of the religious. (After all, for every self-described atheist that you meet in this country, you are likely to meet forty-seven self-described Christians.)
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE] As I said, unless by "irrational person" you mean any person who has at least one irrational opinion or belief, then Tom's statement about "almost all religious people" is fundamentally different from the statement "almost all religious beliefs are irrational". Tom's statement is prejudiced because the only thing he knows about "almost all religious people" is that they have atleast one belief he considers irrationa. Almost all people hold hold some irrational opinions and beliefs. Singling out religious people, as Tom does, implies that they differ in this respect from non-religious people. That's prejudice.
I think the issue with that is that espousing an actual religious belief is a highly conscious and deliberate statement of affinity for an irrational worldview. A lot of people have irrational thoughts, however, not everybody bases their conception of reality on an irrational concept. I think you can have an irrational thought and *be* rational. But an irrational belief? That's seems different to me. It seems much more substantive.
I would put it that: A) religious beliefs are irrational, and B) that religious people hold religious beliefs, C) that holding irrational beliefs is positive evidence of an irrational mind, and therefore D) Religious people are irrational.
I suppose in order to accept that, you would have to concede to agree with me that there are some irrational thoughts that are more "acceptable" for rational people to have and still not be termed "irrational people," because despite having such thoughts and even allowing themselves to be influenced by them, they remain aware of the fact that they are not acting within clear reason. Essentially they know that they are crazy, and are therefore not that crazy. For instance, phobias, crushes, petty jealousies, celebrating birthdays- these can all be acted upon by a rational person as long as that person intellectually acknowledges that their motivations are not based in reason.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, I'm familiar with those studies as well, Tom. Your 'typical' atheist (whatever that means) is more likely to score well on a test about Christians than a Christian is about atheists, of course. The trouble is, the kinds of questions that really get down to why a person believes in God aren't necessarily the sorts of things that can be quantified in a survey...well, perhaps they are, if you grant the notion that the answer really is just 'because my parents taught me to', in which case you're really just believing in a different argument from the start. Prejudging, so to speak.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:quote: Originally posted by The Rabbit: ... Tom's statement is prejudiced because the only thing he knows about "almost all religious people" is that they have atleast one belief he considers irrational. Technically, we know a lot more than that.
We can simply go to a site like this to find out that "almost all religious people are theists", or that "almost all religious people belong to religions founded over 100 years ago", or that "almost all religious people are not Jewish." All these facts are not based on the definition of being religious.
I'm not sure if you are being pedantic or have some real point. Technically we know all kinds of stuff about almost all religious people. Almost religious people have two eyes, speak some language, are between the ages of 1 and 100, breath air, have suffered from some illness, have heard of Mohammed, and believe the world is round. I don't see how any of that is relevant.
Do you think there is something I've missed that Tom knows about almost all religious people that justifies his judgement that "almost all religious people are irrational." or are you just being snarky?
Do you think that "almost all religious people are theists", differs in some important way from my saying "almost all religious people believe something Tom considers irrational."
Do you have some reason to believe that Tom thinks belonging to an organization that is over 100 years old is irrational or that most rational people are Jewish?
Aside from the one item I pointed to above, that almost all religious people believe in the existence of God(s) (something Tom finds irrational), do you believe any data on that site (or any other) played a key roll in forming Tom's opinion that almost all relgious people are irrational?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rabbit, are you saying that holding a belief based on aggregated data is not irrational, but holding a belief based on personal experience is? Or are you simply arguing that opinions based on experience can be prejudiced, whereas opinions based on data are not?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Rabbit: I think that given the real racial and ethnic prejudices that occur in the United States, where many people can exhibit real xenophobia and prejudice without ever leaving the country and interacting with foreigners (or even interacting with particular groups segmented by SES) that prejudice shouldn't be carelessly thrown around in a way that devalues it.
TomD (and arguably all atheists in North America) have grown up and experienced decades of life interacting with, being prosletized to, and being exposed to media about the religious. This is pretty much unavoidable and is not true in reverse.
Consequently, making an assessment of the religious seems to me to be based on a wealth of knowledge that directly contradicts the idea of pre-judging.
You can complain about measurement error, maybe TomD's sample is biased away from Africans or Russians, whatever. But the issue is clearly not that he hasn't measured at all!
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just know, the only ways they could've come to believe in God are..., and I've met enough believers to know don't count as valid reasons.
It's worth noting that believers are pretty regularly surveyed to a fair degree of statistical accuracy. And where your typical believer might have met and conversed with a handful of atheists about secular morality, I can guarantee you -- and, in fact, have evidence to back up the claim -- that your typical atheist is comparatively more thoroughly steeped in the culture and beliefs of the religious. (After all, for every self-described atheist that you meet in this country, you are likely to meet forty-seven self-described Christians.)
And your point is what? Is there some sort of competition going on to decide whether your opinion of "almost all religious people" is based on more data and better data than the average Christian's opinion of atheists?
Do you know anything about selection bias? In my experience (which I have reason to believe is both very deep and broad and broad in this respect), the people who regularly join in religious debates are a highly biased sample of humanity. If your opinion of atheists (or Christians or Muslims or any other group) is based on the most outspoken members of the group, it's a heavily prejudiced opinion because it's based on a prejudiced sampling of the population. I know thousands of Christians, but I only talk about religion in any detail with a tiny fraction of them. I know hundreds of atheists/agnostics/non-religious people, but I only talk about religion with a tiny fraction of them. It isn't rational to presume that the opinions and thought patterns of the most outspoken argumentative group members are representative of the much larger group. It's a heavily biased sample.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there some sort of competition going on to decide whether your opinion of "almost all religious people" is based on more data and better data than the average Christian's opinion of atheists?
Not on my part. I'm confident that my opinion is more informed.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Consequently, making an assessment of the religious seems to me to be based on a wealth of knowledge that directly contradicts the idea of pre-judging.
B.S. I'd be willing to bet that you've never had a religious discussion of any kind with 99% of the people you've met. Among the people you know well enough to know what religion (if any) they adhere to, what fraction have you spoken with in enough detail to understand what they believe and why? 75% of the people in the US and Canada are (by some definition) Christians, what fraction of those have tried to proselyte you?
If I based my opinion of atheists and agnostics based solely on those I've debated with at hatrack, it would be vastly different from the opinion I've formed over years of working and associating the atheist/agnostic academics. If I based my opinion of Jews based on the most vocal member of this forum, it would be radically different than the opinion of formed based on my real life interaction with many Jews. If I based my opinion of Jehovah's Witnesses on the few virtual strangers I've debated with, it would be radically different than my opinion formed based on those I've worked and associated with at greater length.
A biased data set is a biased data set no matter how big it is. Concluding that "almost all members" of any group share the characteristics of the small percentage with whom you have argued is prejudiced, whether that small percentage is 2 people or 2000 thousand.
The number of people hurt by a prejudice and the severity of the crimes committed because of it, may be a valid way to judge the seriousness of a prejudice. They are not a valid way to determine whether or not it is a prejudice.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is there some sort of competition going on to decide whether your opinion of "almost all religious people" is based on more data and better data than the average Christian's opinion of atheists?
Not on my part. I'm confident that my opinion is more informed.
Your arrogance is really impressive Tom. Explain to me the evidence you have which makes you confident that your opinion is more informed than the opinions held by "almost all" other people on the planet.
To start off, why don't you quantify what you mean by "almost all". If 1% of religious people were better informed than you would, that modify your assessment, or would it take 20%. If you thought it was only 51%, would you be as vocal about it. Next, why don't you define what you mean by "religious people". 75% of North Americans say they are Christian. Only about 40% say they attend church regularly. Of those who say they attend church regularly, its estimated only about half actually do. Which group are you talking about when you say "religious people."
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: B.S. I'd be willing to bet that you've never had a religious discussion of any kind with 99% of the people you've met. ... Concluding that "almost all members" of any group share the characteristics of the small percentage with whom you have argued [my emphasis] is prejudiced
First, I'd ask you to keep your profanity to yourself.
Continuing onward, 99% is an absolutely silly goalpost to try to establish. With that kind of threshold, Gallup would never be able to say whether the vast majority of Americans favour healthcare, oppose the war, etc if they needed to poll 99% of people. You only need a random sample of roughly 1000 adults to do the kind of assessment that is currently done on Gallup with acceptable significance.
Second, the fact that you repeatedly come back to the example of "arguments" as a way that atheists learn about the religious shows what a clear misunderstanding of the position of minorities in society you're labouring under.
We can make this more clear if we guessed that the the primary way that Chinese Americans learn about White Americans would be by confronting them in arguments. This is clearly absurd. You can read something like Iris Chang's 'Chinese in America' to illustrate this.
Atheists are simply submerged in the media and culture of the religious, there is no way to get around it. We get radio and television programming intended by religious people for religious people. We get to attend ceremonies where the presumption is that everyone present is religious. Even the curriculum in schools ensures that atheists will be exposed to religious thought and history (which is a good thing, I might add). This is not exposure to radicals, this is just a fact of growing up.
Arguments may be the first thing that comes to your mind about how you learn about atheists. It is not remotely the first thing that comes to the mind of an atheist (in North America anyways) about how one learns about the religious.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your arrogance is really impressive Tom. Explain to me the evidence you have which makes you confident that your opinion is more informed than the opinions held by "almost all" other people on the planet.
So you're saying that you want there to be a competition between my opinions and other peoples'?
quote:If 1% of religious people were better informed than you would, (sic) that modify your assessment...
Which assessment? My belief that my opinion of the typical Christian is more informed than the typical Christian's opinion of atheists? Or that the vast majority of believers are irrational, an assessment that does not depend upon their familiarity with atheism in any way?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Continuing onward, 99% is an absolutely silly goalpost to try to establish. With that kind of threshold, Gallup would never be able to say whether the vast majority of Americans favour healthcare, oppose the war, etc if they needed to poll 99% of people. You only need a random sample of roughly 1000 adults to do the kind of assessment that is currently done on Gallup with acceptable significance.
You are conflating way too many things. First, I didn't set 99% as a goal post. I asked Tom to define what he meant by "almost all religious people". In my mind, "almost all" implies far more than a majority or even a vast majority. It implies there are very few exception.
For example, If someone said "almost all Asian Americans live on either the west coast or New York", I would consider it reasonable to point out that there are 200,000 Asians living in Houston (even though that's only 2% of the total). Exactly how reasonable would depend on the context of the argument. If for example, the person was telling you not to bother looking for authentic Asian food in Texas because "almost all the Asian Americans live on California or New York", it would be an obviously rational contradiction.
A properly randomized poll by Gallop surveys has very little in common with the kind of experience you and Tom are talking about. That is part of my point.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Arguments may be the first thing that comes to your mind about how you learn about atheists. It is not remotely the first thing that comes to the mind of an atheist (in North America anyways) about how one learns about the religious.
QFT. I don't know when I stopped "arguing" about religion with people in person. My middle teens probably. Since I haven't seen a compelling (at least to me) argument in favor of religion in my whole adult life, I don't find the prospect of actually allowing people to voice their thoughts on it to me in an argumentative way. In person, I usually just listen- maybe I question, but it's rarely, rarely interesting to me in the slightest. Online I suppose you can just very easily pick the parts of the discussion that interest you, and talk about that- and the lack of immediacy cuts down on chatter, though it focuses the discussion in a way that couldn't happen in person.
I do sometimes wonder whether that little "don't talk about religion" part of etiquette came about because people do argue about it, or because it is so insufferably *boring* to people who don't care. And, of course, there are plenty of "religious" people who really don't care either. For my part, I do think religious people are fundamentally irrational in their world views, but since I think most people would just be fundamentally irrational anyway, and religion is just an expression of the tendency, I don't really care that much.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Or that the vast majority of believers are irrational, an assessment that does not depend upon their familiarity with atheism in any way?
:Anecdote Alert: It occurs to me that generally I do not assume anything about the specifics of the beliefs of any person I meet, even when they tell me about their religion (which is only sometimes). However, I have on at least several occasions had religious people state that I believe in "nothing," "chaos," "only yourself," or "that God is dead." It always seems to flip their cookies when I tell them no to all that. Then they get downright anxious when I start talking about the 2d planet and the 3d visitor and north of the north pole and Carl Sagan crap like that.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You are conflating way too many things. First, I didn't set 99% as a goal post. I asked Tom to define what he meant by "almost all religious people". In my mind, "almost all" implies far more than a majority or even a vast majority. It implies there are very few exception.
Note: the first appearance AFAIK of the phrase (in this thread) "almost all religious people" is your post at January 07, 2011 08:57 AM. TomD has never used this phrase in this thread, using instead qualifiers such as "vast majority" and "most religious believers."
By my reading, I'm the only person that has offered descriptors of religious people along the lines of "almost all religious people" as a response to that initial appearance.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Your arrogance is really impressive Tom. Explain to me the evidence you have which makes you confident that your opinion is more informed than the opinions held by "almost all" other people on the planet.
So you're saying that you want there to be a competition between my opinions and other peoples'?
No, I'm just trying to figure out why you brought it up. Whether or not your opinion of religious people is or is not better informed than the the typical christian's opinion of atheists, has little relevance as to whether or not your opinion is based on prejudice.
quote:
quote:If 1% of religious people were better informed than you would, (sic) that modify your assessment...
Which assessment? My belief that my opinion of the typical Christian is more informed than the typical Christian's opinion of atheists? Or that the vast majority of believers are irrational, an assessment that does not depend upon their familiarity with atheism in any way?
I was presuming that the things you throw out were rationally connected in some way. Since I can see no rational reason to proclaim that "almost all religious people are irrational", unless you mean to imply that irrationality is something significantly more characteristic among religious than the among people in general. I was presuming that your argument that Christians were less informed in their opinion of atheist than you are in your opinion of Christians, that this was intended to support your opinion that almost all Christians are irrational.
I was presuming that there was some logical thread that relating your comments and that you had some point in engaging in discussion beyond massaging your own ego or venting your bitterness over the fact that God has not forcefully intervened to prevent your major life mistakes.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note: the first appearance AFAIK of the phrase (in this thread) "almost all religious people" is your post at January 07, 2011 08:57 AM. TomD has never used this phrase in this thread, using instead qualifiers such as "vast majority" and "most religious believers."
I stand corrected. I should have checked the quote rather than relying on memory.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Anecdote Alert: It occurs to me that generally I do not assume anything about the specifics of the beliefs of any person I meet, even when they tell me about their religion (which is only sometimes). However, I have on at least several occasions had religious people state that I believe in "nothing," "chaos," "only yourself," or "that God is dead." It always seems to flip their cookies when I tell them no to all that. Then they get downright anxious when I start talking about the 2d planet and the 3d visitor and north of the north pole and Carl Sagan crap like that.
Counter anecdote: I have on many occasions had people tell me that because I am LDS I believe a long laundry list of things which I don't. When I correct them, many have argued stridently that I'm wrong (about what I personally believe). I've had them make all kinds of false presumptions about my politics, my education, and my family life. I've even been verbally assaulted for things I don't do or support. People, some on this very site, have said more or less outright that being an LDS scientist makes me dishonest and unreliable in one way or another.
This experience is a small part of why I think its important to recognize all prejudices. If you are offended (even slightly) when people falsely presume they know what you believe, why make the same error in reverse?
Rationality begins with recognizing what we don't know. When it comes to what other people think and believe, we all know very little. Most people are so poor at articulating their most cherished beliefs that even when they've gone to great lengths to do so, it is can be very very difficult to truly understand.
[ January 07, 2011, 01:28 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
