Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Alice on December 31, 2011 at 8:24pm

Tom - I don't think the members of the Brights community are much different to our AN community - I see similar responses to new comers here, who are newly away from their theist points of view - and so still under some illusion - they get a bumpy reception.  

My point is about how we educate others on rational thinking - do we do it with negative comments and ridicule, or do we make an effort to be kind whilst we point out the faults in their reasoning?

It's not as simple as become an atheist - it's about a whole change in the way that we think - from reasoning based in non-rational thought, to reasoning based in rational thought - and this process takes time and education by others who are willing to hear non-rational statements, and provide education - I'm arguing that we need to show more kindness and compassion when it comes to educating people to think rationally.

Thanks for highlighting the different meanings of rational.  Logical rational and goal-directed rational thinking....  it's worth making those finer distinctions.

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on December 31, 2011 at 10:22pm

Alice, I really like this group discussion and openness to input, although I didn't have problems as a newcomer.  I did get responses that explained my misunderstanding of the meaning of atheist and I had a chance to rethink my position.  With clear thinking and realistic definitions, this site helps me come to a deeper understanding of what it means to claim to be an atheist.  I particularly like your gentle style, Alice; you nudge and provoke in a compassionate way, wise beyond your years.  

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 1, 2012 at 2:41am

Joan - that's very kind of you - thank you for the compliment to my character :)

I too much appreciate the opportunity to share and be challenged and learn in this community - we are a brutally honest lot at times - and I've learnt how to let it role off me now - on the whole I don't get personal attacks - we do tend to stick to playing the ball and not the person.....  it's just that we can come in so very personally attached to our beliefs about reality, strong identification, and can take attacks on the beliefs personally.

Permalink Reply by james boag on January 6, 2012 at 2:28pm

I personally find it extremely frustrating the irrationality of the religious, but as I found, it is sometimes moderated by the discover that at least in some cases the individuals do not have that capacity. They function very well in there day to day lives but when it comes to understanding abstract thought, there is something lacking. It is my thinking that it is in poor taste to take offense where none is intended. So I try not to trouble such people, to ask of them something they are not equipped to do--is both folly and rude.   

Permalink Reply by Joan Denoo on January 6, 2012 at 5:15pm

James, help me understand your meaning of "abstract."

From my perspective an abstract thought is a god, or something, creates the world, or god creates man out of dust and uses a rib to create a woman, or god creates man to have dominion over all the swims, crawls and flies, or that god stopped the sun from traveling across the sky, or god created a son who didn't die and who went to heaven on a beam, and god created man to sacrifice himself in imitation of a crucified Christ, and god has his eyes on a sparrow, and god answers prayers, and God set up a system of rewards and punishment for those who obey. 

Am I missing something? 

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on January 12, 2012 at 9:17am

I think creationists are protecting their beliefs, which is a quite rational goal.

Protecting irrationality can be rational? It sounds like protecting poverty from the rich.

Permalink Reply by Alice on January 12, 2012 at 6:34pm

Do you mean in the sense that the Buddha was protected from viewing poverty?

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on January 12, 2012 at 10:33pm

Alice

Gautam Buddha was prevented from seeing poverty by others. The creationists are deliberately protecting their beliefs, mainly from science. This is what I mean.

Permalink Reply by Tom Sarbeck on January 13, 2012 at 8:17am

MK, I'm sorry to have taken this long to reply. You are a potent reasoner; to prevail here I needed to think clearly.

First, your "Protecting irrationality can be rational?"

It can be. Let's define the word: rational - clearly, sensibly, logically.

It's as clear, sensible and logical for people with weak minds to protect themselves as it is for people with strong minds to do so.

1. Who doesn't have irrational beliefs? The content of these beliefs differ; their irrationality doesn't.

2. Believers might protect their irrational beliefs with flight; we non-believers might protect our irrational beliefs with fight, or argument.

Second, your "It sounds like protecting poverty from the rich."

Poverty is a condition; the rich are people. The two are unlikes.

Let's deal with likes: poverty and wealth, or poor people and rich people.

1. Protecting poor people from rich people is rational. Protecting rich people from poor people is rational. Will rich people take poverty from those who have it?

2. Protecting poverty from wealth seems irrational but people do it. Of the three ways I name below, the first is the least rational and the third is the most rational.

a. Poor people might despair, or give up hope.

b. Poor people might believe events are predetermined, as taught by some religions.

c. Poor people might protect poverty (the little they have) from the rich by not putting it into banks, who protect their rights with pages of legalisms in customer agreements.

Madhukar, thank you for providing me with an opportunity to take you on. I perhaps won this round because English is my native language. I know a bit of Spanish, less German, still less Russian, and none of your native language.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on January 13, 2012 at 10:11am

Tom Sarbeck

I am actually glad that you got an opportunity to take me on, I am taking this very positively. I want add a couple of points, first, kindly adress me as Madhukar and secondly, thanks very much for your complements. As for your long reply, I will have to take some time to read it.

Permalink Reply by Madhukar Kulkarni on January 14, 2012 at 2:16am

Tom Sarbeck

First, your "Protecting irrationality can be rational?"

It can be. Let's define the word: rational - clearly, sensibly, logically.

There are two parts to the above question. One may commit irrationality, due to say some lack of knowledge and therefore his instinct may be wanting to defend the irrrationality. We may therefore say that this desire to defend irrationality is understandable but it can not be said to rational. We may use some other colloquial words baecause we are less particular about linguistic correctness but are more concerned about conveying a thought. Similarly, it is not rational even for a third person to defend another persons irrationality. When we discuss a point theoretically, I think what I say seems "rational" to me.

Now, as for the use of my words 'poor' and 'rich', it's is possible that I did not try to be very accurate because I did not know that they will be dissected. I have managed to convey what I wanted to say.

 

Permalink Reply by Greg LeGore on January 14, 2012 at 8:29am

Tom, agree it is a rational goal to protect their beliefs - after all, often having been indoctrinated since birth or during difficult circumstances (Al-anon), people will not easily give them up, esp. when doing so means giving up the idea of eternal life in heaven with loved ones and friends and at least right now can have so many negative effects upon one's existing life and relationships.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page