4
   

Religion Does Not Engender Respect

 
 
Chumly
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 03:55 pm
@wandeljw,
Would you please be kind enough to address post # 4,837,966 kind sir, before I address your latest question?
Chumly
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 03:57 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
May I suggest that you consider the scientific method as to your arguments or even more to the point the methodology of skepticism?
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 03:59 pm
@Chumly,
You are playing games, Chumly. Your post # 4,837,966 only had one statement. You edited that post after my post was already sitting there.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:00 pm
@Chumly,
They generally treat me well in personal give and take, and when they don't, all bets are off.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:07 pm
@wandeljw,
No games but my connection / computer is flaky in that I seem to have entered the text prior to my realizing it. Would you be willing to address post # 4,837,966? I will edit my posts in their entirely on MS Word so as to ensure consistency. Also what exactly is the problem with the text in question?

It seems to me it's pretty straightforward, respectful and not unreasonable as per:

1) Assuming your claim has merit (which I have not as of yet addressed) why should I argue justification for another?

2) On what grounds do you claim I have justified lack of respect for religion for myself only?

0 Replies
 
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:19 pm
@wandeljw,
I suggest they are more points of argument than conclusions in the sense that conclusions means the end or close

I cannot speak directly for anyone else but it would not be unsurprising if others held similar perspectives.

May I ask why this line of questioning has merit for you?
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:30 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote
Quote:
I argue that the methodology of skepticism as it applies not to philosophical skepticism but to scientific skepticism, can be at least in part if not in whole be exempted from your claims.

In other words it scientific skepticism is not predicated on individual or group beliefs.


Any lay religionist will counter this with catch-all clauses like... "science is a divine gift"..."doubt is required to test my faith". And intellectual religionists like John Polkinghorne (Cambridge professor of particle physics, turned priest) will counter with "the bible is allegorical rather than factual".
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:45 pm
@fresco,
They would first have to find direct biblical reference to "science is a divine gift" and given the pseudo-science in the bible I suggest that would be more of a curse from thier devil than a gift from their god.

As to "doubt is required to test my faith" again they would first have to find direct biblical reference to doubt being a requirement of faith; however the bible is ever so much about the exact opposite; the complete extermination of doubt.

As to the so-called intellectual religionists countering that "the bible is allegorical rather than factual", then any meaning which may be construed would be a function of the reader's mental excreta.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:54 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
They generally treat me well in personal give and take, and when they don't, all bets are off.
I have a question for you vis-a-vis the following what-if scenario:

A very close family member talks to you about their religious activities on an ongoing basis, month over month and year over year; would you consider that reason enough to express your perspectives on religious activities?

What if they became upset and said you showed "lack of respect" when you pointed out the numerous faults in popular religions and their dogma.

Would you ask them to cease and desist their commentaries about their religious activities if they did not want reciprocity?
wandeljw
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 04:55 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

I suggest they are more points of argument than conclusions in the sense that conclusions means the end or close

I cannot speak directly for anyone else but it would not be unsurprising if others held similar perspectives.

May I ask why this line of questioning has merit for you?


Everything seems to depend on this so-called "methodology of skepticism." I do not know anyone, other than you, who uses this methodology. I am not even sure if this methodology is useful.
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:02 pm
@Chumly,
You don't get it. We atheists have decided to opt out of what we consider to be nonsense, but what millions are dependent on to make sense of their lives. So we go to weddings and funerals etc "out of respect" for the fellow participants, endure the mumbo-jumbo, and pat ourselves on the back for "doing the right thing in the circumstances". That is the actuality of "respect" , not a futile argument about "evidence" which relgionists see staring them in the face by the very fact of their own existence.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:12 pm
@fresco,
If you recall, I'm going for respect (as per the title) whereas you are going for deference (which is a whole 'nother can of worms as to whether I should submit).

respect:
esteem for or a sense of the worth or excellence of a person, a personal quality or ability, or something considered as a manifestation of a personal quality or ability

deference:
respectful submission or yielding to the judgment, opinion, will, etc., of another
Chumly
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:19 pm
@wandeljw,
Methodological skepticism is at the heart of science. When methodological skepticism is ignored, pseudoscience arises.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:26 pm
As well, I quite like this pdf by John Jackson:
http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=what_is_skepticism.php
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:34 pm
@Chumly,
Hmm...For some reason your respect vs deference dichotomy seems to break down in that scene from a Peter Sellers hippie movie where Herbie arrives at a Catholic funeral wearing " Hopi Indian mourning feathers" in his hair ! Smile
(Alice B. Toklas)
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:36 pm
@Chumly,
I have a sister that is a fundamentalist Christian. She babbles on and I ignore it. The few times she addressed me on the topic, I told her I consider it a bunch of crap. She doesn't back off her beliefs, but she does not try to press me on it. I don't lie to any of the family and they don't ever try to convert me. My first wife told me - after the divorce - one thing she held against me was my not being religious. I replied that I had not once tried to alter her belief. She said, "Yes, but when I talked about it, you were dismissive." I had always allowed her to express herself, but since she knew before the wedding I was an atheist, I did not feel compelled to lie to her. Perceptions.
0 Replies
 
Lustig Andrei
 
  2  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:42 pm
@Chumly,
That entire post is a bucketful of BS, Chum.
Chumly
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:45 pm
@fresco,
Quote:
In his will, Sellers requested that the Glenn Miller song "In the Mood" be played at his funeral. The request is considered his last touch of humour, as he hated the piece
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Sellers
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  3  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:46 pm
@Chumly,
Chumly wrote:

Methodological skepticism is at the heart of science. When methodological skepticism is ignored, pseudoscience arises.


The standard model of cosmology & physics says that the universe started with "the big bang", the proper mathematical term for which is a "singularity". The mathematical definition of a "singularity" is something that is undefined and about which one can assert nothing.

Now, applying your methodological skepticism, what do you have to say about that? Apparently it all started with something we can't describe, but you are certain there was no creator. Please explain your apparent complete lack of skepticism here, or towards the proposition that the universe certainly had no creator, which is fundamental to atheism.
Chumly
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Dec, 2011 05:48 pm
@Lustig Andrei,
Argument by dismissal.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 09:40:22