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

I reject your fundamental thesis on the grounds that there is no one way to do these things.

It'd be nice if every atheist was a humble, honest person who simply didn't believe in God, such as I believe, say, Eli from the Chariots of Iron. On the other hand, some of us have been unjustly hurt and are rightfully angry.

The glory of a pluralistic approach - a genuinely pluralistic approach - is that we have many voices speaking in many different ways. We are not a church, we do not require conformity of concept, and we are not all held to one another's standards. We have a common lack of belief, that's all.

Plus, trying to apply engineering (which is sensible) to socialisation (which is very much not) is just asking for trouble.
Based on your comment, you're saying ( I think) that should we come across like a rabble of angry psychotic x-tians that's just the way it is. Or am I missing something? Religion is on it's ass because of the fundamentalists, the implacable extremists who've helped an otherwise bankrupt premise hurl more quickly over a cliff. We're a movement with the facts, the data, the research, the science, the reason, and presumably the self control that comes with it. When you hold the real cards (not the bullshit make believe ones) why be a fucking asshole about it? Our movement doesn't need a bunch of people who need to vent. You said it's not a church. Well hell,it's not therapy session either for people with pent up trauma. Go get a prescription for that or take up yoga.
Not talking to you specifically by the way, it's what I'd say to people who want to be angry because they deserve to be and want to vent their anger at a religion they think is complete bullshit, which it is.
I am saying nothing of how we 'should' act, I'm rejecting your view of how we should act, and providing a reason why I think your approach is either unworkable or principled badly. You're the one who proposed a direction, I'm telling you why I don't want to go that way.

As it stands, you seem to mostly view yourself as superior to everyone and want only a very limited field of expression, but you're not able to just outright say that you think your club would be better off if it was smaller.
agreed with Duane, Roy. Stop pretending that you have some wise and powerful objective truth. Your opinion is only as strong as your support and with the anger you're exhibiting here, your message is also rather hypocritical.

Calm down and discuss with us please if you are so sure of your argument.
Roy Batty: As a Six Sigma professional

I suppose the irony is lost on you that Sigma 6 is just yet another management cult, like ITIL, ISO9000, "continuous improvement" and many others before it - all complete with mantras, jingles and Immutable Truths.

Now flipping the bird isn't the same as killing people with which you "don't have the luxury of debating the scientific merits of each position in a calm and rational manner" with, but it's the same underlying logic, differing only in degree and scope.

I resent your assumption that social commentary has to be verbal.

Quality management systems -
Why is 6 Sigma a "management cult"? The fact is uses acronyms makes it suspect? Then physics is suspect as well? Botany? Zoology? Medicine? They also use acronyms. Botanists and zoologists even use Greek and Latin words to describe plants and animals. Do you really presume they are cults?

I resent your assumption that a discipline grounded on stringent experimental design and proven statistical methodology is a cult.
I agree to some extent on normal distributions. That's why it's important perform statistical tests on your data to determine if they are normal or not to begin with. There are analytical tools for either case. Secondly DFSS and the DMAIC process doesn't force reality to conform to it.

This discipline isn't a dogma. It can't be a cult. But it can be practiced by personalities who have a grandiose idea that it is the end all and be all. I don't think it is. It's a tool. It doesn't fit every nut, or bolt, or drive every nail. And I've had it out with some who think everything has to be shoe horned into a 6 sigma framework. I call BS more than is healthy career wise on that issue :)

About management. Let me say a few words on this. Just like ANYTHING in almost any organization where people are involved, any practitioner of any discipline can be thrashed about politically by management when the data and the conclusions doesn't fit the policy that must be true, or that must be false.

It's the familiar political situation where the conclusion must look for the data to support it, and ignore anything contradictory. Or else.

This self-serving aspect of human nature makes me wary of anyone who is obsessively worried which side the bread their livelihood is buttered on, or is a shameless suck up, or follower. No one is above being a political animal, who, whether they have a god or not, may sell out. Seen it with my own eyes.

Me? I have zero tolerance for selling out and never have and never will. I don't compromise with the facts, no matter where they lead, no matter how politically or emotionally unpopular. And if the facts in this forum upset an fellow atheist - hell I'm used to that, bring it on.
People don't make decisions based on facts. They make decisions based on emotions.

Too true! It requires constant effort to rationally process information. We are so wired to react emotionally.

Emotions are wonderful and give life flavor, but emotions are terrible tools for decision making.
yet, for peace of mind, we must adopt a moral code, ironically, which may be based on reason but is still enforced by emotions
based on reason but is still enforced by emotions

Even worse, I think a good moral code is based on feelings (empathy), but reinforced with reason...lol
Roy: Why is 6 Sigma a "management cult"? The fact is uses acronyms makes it suspect?

Yes. It is cult like. Anything that obscures reality by using unnecessary junk language and buzzwords is a cult. Obfuscatory language is to exclude people, and has no justification of necessity. It allows pompous consultants to extort vast sums of cash out of management by using magical sounding language to create the illusion they know what they are talking about. It allows middle management to likewise learn the weasel words and magical incantations, thereby also learning to create the illusion of competence.

Then physics is suspect as well? Botany? Zoology? Medicine?

No they're not. When they encounter the unique, they name it and stick to it. These management cults are purely a branding exercise size to give variations on the exact same common building blocks of knowledge the illusion of being new. They're not. It's amazing how easy it is to sucker people into it. It is more than cultish - it is almost religious. Haven't you ever read The Emperor's New Clothes ?

There is only one management cult that works - K.I.S.S.

RSS

Support Atheist Nexus

Donate Today

Donate

 

Help Nexus When You Buy From Amazon

Amazon

AJY

 

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

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service