What I most viscerally detest about religion is how it is practiced by the so-called faithful. It is practiced in hypocrisy, conceit, intolerance, and anger. It is irrational with it's atrocities committed by it's hysterical zealots who do not only lash out against unbelievers in the most horrific ways, but lash out at anyone that disagrees with them.

Unfortunately, and with a great measure of embarrassment, I see fellow atheists expressing themselves and acting out that is almost as repulsive to me as when a religious person does it. I am more forgiving of the atheist, naturally because our position starts with experimental data, and even if you shout it out, or shout someone down armed with it, you're still right.

But then again, you're not. Their is one more reason why religion is an atrocity and why it has lost it's grip across the face of the earth and it's not the reason I'm naturally inclined to agree with, but it's not because it's based on the unprovable,
but it's because, that in addition to being unprovable, they are insufferable brutes.

If hypothetically a scientist whose experimental data is reproducible, and whose hypothesis, data, and conclusions have passed successfully through the grueling peer review process, and maybe even has their discovery perhaps lead to revising an established theory, and perhaps leading to a new theory, will completely destroy whatever he's gained by being a hypocritical, conceited, intolerant, angry, irrational, insufferable brute.

As a Six Sigma professional, it is completely unacceptable to inject emotion and your subjective prejudices or expectations into your project your DMAIC, or DFSS process.

It may subject you and your project to undue (and avoidable) criticism, and be a detriment to your project itself, and the benefits that project could produce.

We should police ourselves to ensure that we permanently rise above the insufferable
irrationality that surrounds us. And for that, we need abundant self criticism on how we express ourselves, particularly since we're the ones holding all the data.

Let's up our behavior under the scrutiny of the scientific method, and confirm whether we're spreading the word and getting involved in a manner that DOES NOT BACKFIRE.

Because I tell you, just as with a hypothetical Six Sigma project, the backlash with blow up in your face. It has worked against religion, let's not have it work against us.

Views: 63

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Tom,

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

My concern remains that in the process of shouting and it's aftermath, all parties can lose perspective on the original goals and foundation upon which a movement was built. Radicalization has led to schisms and irrational offshoots within various movements. Why? because when any movement crosses or considers crossing into the arena of politics, which this movement will wind up in like it or not, the corrupting influences cause it to forget, compromise, and sell out to more powerful and appealing goals that go beyond the movements intentions. Politics is psychology on a massive scale and it does not by definition appeal to REASON. REASON is what the foundation of atheism is.

It rests on science. Human psychological failings cause almost anything to degenerate into conflict, war, even genocide in "the name of something" or worse, in the name of nothing, since the political, popular movement, should it come to pass that way for atheism, will attract those who merely want some payback, or to seek gain from that movement without the least interest in its principles for the sake of power only.

The French Revolution in particular is a textbook example of when passions (of the same stripe as those of the crusades and the inquisition) overcome reason. The French Revolution gave birth to a temporary and bloody "cult of reason", as they called themselves. And in the name of reason, of science, no religion, did the reign of terror reach a fever pitch.

To that there was a reaction against reason, not because it was not reasonable, but because it had become the thing it hated.
Duane, I have time to post summaries. I do not have time to write 5 page dissertations, nor do I presume that you have time to provide 15 page critiques, and then for me to provide a 30 page rebuttals. I write what is self evident to me from my readings. This discussion group is not a thesis group, nor is it a call for papers. By the way I will continue to make spelling errors and will relish each of them.
I think what Roy is calling for is a method for us to stay on the left side of the conversation below. I am hoping we can find something without falling into the traps of the accomodationists or faitheists.

Right on Glenn.
Unfortunately, and with a great measure of embarrassment, I see fellow atheists expressing themselves and acting out that is almost as repulsive to me as when a religious person does it.
You people need to express your opinions in a way I'm comfortable with or you're just as bad as theists! You disgust me! Hey, isn't that emotion too?

As a Six Sigma professional, it is completely unacceptable to inject emotion and your subjective prejudices or expectations into your project your DMAIC, or DFSS process.
All you sons-a-bitches that have to deal with nutjob theists that would gleefully kill you if they could get away with it can just shut the hell up and act in a manner that pleases me, lest I deem you unworthy to be a member of my cause. Plus don't you dare offend anyone because (insert five or six random metaphors).

Because I tell you, just as with a hypothetical Six Sigma project, the backlash with blow up in your face. It has worked against religion, let's not have it work against us.
Yeah! Let's all be dispassionate as possible! It worked for Al Gore!
Because I tell you, just as with a hypothetical Six Sigma project, the backlash with blow up in your face. It has worked against religion, let's not have it work against us.
Nonsense. The backlash against religion came from many different places, none of which were "Not being logical enough". The two major ones being when they killed enough people that everyone started to take notice, and they decided they were going to force society to live by their idiot beliefs in an iron age God. I've yet to see an atheist pull the equivalent of either.
Strangely enough, in your grand argument against emotion, you come across as mightily angry that every atheist in the world doesn't act exactly the way you want them to. The world does not work according to a management technique that was designed around dealing with people that don't function well in society.

Short version: People are people. Demanding people not be people is FAR closer to religion than any emotional action any person could take. In fact, that's the basis of ALL the causes of the backlash against religion. "Don't be human or we'll kill you." "Don't be human or we'll shun you." "Don't be human or we'll excommunicate you." "Don't be human or we'll deprive you of your rights." "Don't be human or we'll declare you illogical."

Last of all:
Let's up our behavior under the scrutiny of the scientific method, and confirm whether we're spreading the word and getting involved in a manner that DOES NOT BACKFIRE.
This isn't what the scientific method is for. It's to increase our knowledge about the universe, not a moral code or a system for behavior. To claim otherwise is to turn it into a religion in its own right.
Congratulations, you sound like an Anarchist.
agreed. I wouldn't go quite so far as anarchist because I don't think he thought it all the way through, but he certainly argued much like a spoiled child.

All the straw-mans made my head spin. I think you misrepresent Roy's ideas so badly. I don't know if that was intentional or not. I hope not.

I say to you, Joey: Why should a theist care that you're angry? So what? They aren't wronged by other theists so they have no reason to change. If you are actually as angry as you claim towards theists and want to make a difference in changing them, your first step is getting them to respect you as a calm rational person rather than an impossibly emotionally biased bigot.

Anger is extremely useful for motivating the self and those with similar opinions, but has no constructive place when projecting anger as a weapon in an intellectual debate with someone who doesn't share the same opinion/anger. That is the point here.

No one claimed that you don't have the right to be angry, but when you respond to reasonable arguments with angry ones like that one ^, people will surely be less inclined to bother with your opinion.

I meant that as constructive criticism, now. So don't blow up on me please. Just take some time to consider what is actually being said rather than making premature emotional responses.
Rather unhelpful attitude there, Roy. You just dismissed his argument wholesale with a perjorative term. That's the kind of thing a baptist would do.
@ Roy:So you demand others be logical and rational and argue by nothing more than ad hominem?

@Johnny: Really? Straw men? Show me one. Pick out a point and show how it was a misrepresentation.
To be perfectly honest, I'm not angry at theists. What I am sick of is atheists demanding other atheists conform to their attitudes. I dislike holier than thou attitudes and thoroughly enjoy mocking them.

And "spoiled child" is constructive criticism? Shall I insist on my good intentions and call you a pretentious wanker? ;)
hmm, well as I said, anger is beneficial only with people who share your views. It has no place in discussion. That is why that comment was not directed at you. Sorry to offend you. My annoyance gets the best of me at times.

Now, I agree that you have the right to pursue atheism however you want to. Naturally, I have a preference but having been absent and not wanting to read the whole thing again, I'm rather sure he probably said "should" and not "must." In order to support the claim that he demanded conformity you need an aspect of "must" in his argument. Just looking at the quotes that you originally responded to, he said things like "as a Six Sigma professional, it is completely unacceptable"... if you don't conform to that and aren't a master of that perspective, then no obligation to you.

He put his opinion there just as valid as yours. He didn't make you do anything. I do rather object to his childish response as well.

Now, i do agree with the idea that it's unjustified to force your opinion on others, but I viewed this as a personal statement of disgust that aimed to convince (not all that well, though I agreed with some stuff) people to take his perspective. There's nothing wrong with that either. His perspective is his. Now, whether or not he pursues this in a sophist way is a different matter. I was under the impression that you disagreed with the "rationality over emotinons" message

I do have some misrepresentations but I am strapped for time right now.
Congratulations, you sound like an Anarchist Rationalist.
Fixed.
yes... the more this thread progresses, the more sophist Roy gets. If he wants his message to spread to other atheists, he should certainly practice what he preaches.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

 

© 2014   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service