[W: #593] Correlation Between Religiosity And Scientific Illiteracy Or Hostility

[Galactic Spin]

I've believed things and taken action with incorrect motivations. I assume I'm probably in pretty good company.

Apparently, you're unique in that this kind of thing doesn't happen to you.

Well that sounds nice on an embroidered pillow, but I don't think it applies to the most robust and well evidenced scientific theory in history.

 

[Mulefoot]

Well that sounds nice on an embroidered pillow, but I don't think it applies to the most robust and well evidenced scientific theory in history.

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Galactic Spin]

I don't know what you're talking about.

Bummer.

 

[devildavid]

Unfortunately, things are far more complex than you propose. Most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition , much less everyone else's.

Let’s get back to this original post. Your claim is that people reject propositions of things for reasons they are unaware of. So if an atheist says logic led them to not accept the proposition of the existence of gods, you say it is probably some other reason and so it is a less legitimate reason in your eyes. If they could only see, for example, it is really hatred of believers motivating their rejection, they would see the error of their ways and give believing in gods a fair shot.

If your turn that same reasoning on believers, the same conclusion could apply. Maybe a trauma caused belief in gods, and not a sincere and thoughtful process. And if they examined how trauma led to acceptance, they could then take deeper look at why they believe and perhaps see reasons not to believe.

Before you decide that you know better about what motivates atheism, think about how the same thing can be used against theists.

It is better to take everyone at their word as to their reasons for accepting or rejecting propositions, than to attempt to undermine the other side by claiming they are unfit to know their motivations because you then undermine your own side of the debate.

 

[PoS]

I do understand. Your asking me to provide oxygen to a conspiracy theorist. I fail to why I would.

Keep in mind that any argument about climate change in todays world is about how to deal with it not waste time with a vocal minority. If you want to play that game then it is up to you to amuse me with whatever ridiculous attempt you make or just stand there and keep repeating the only argument a theist really has, ie. " prove me wrong" .

Nope, all Im showing is the truth about you, that you really dont have any evidence to support your insane beliefs and so you keep lying.

 

[soylentgreen]

Nope, all Im showing is the truth about you, that you really dont have any evidence to support your insane beliefs and so you keep lying.

It is not that the evidence is not there for any to see. it is that it is a waste of time dealing with those who simply do nothing more than deny the evidence.

 

[Mulefoot]

Let’s get back to this original post. Your claim is that people reject propositions of things for reasons they are unaware of. So if an atheist says logic led them to not accept the proposition of the existence of gods, you say it is probably some other reason and so it is a less legitimate reason in your eyes. If they could only see, for example, it is really hatred of believers motivating their rejection, they would see the error of their ways and give believing in gods a fair shot.

If your turn that same reasoning on believers, the same conclusion could apply. Maybe a trauma caused belief in gods, and not a sincere and thoughtful process. And if they examined how trauma led to acceptance, they could then take deeper look at why they believe and perhaps see reasons not to believe.

Before you decide that you know better about what motivates atheism, think about how the same thing can be used against theists.

It is better to take everyone at their word as to their reasons for accepting or rejecting propositions, than to attempt to undermine the other side by claiming they are unfit to know their motivations because you then undermine your own side of the debate.

Of course the same conclusion applies to both sides - that's the point. All of us make declarations about the world with motivations that we are often unaware of. It's the human condition.

And no, it's not inherently better (or worse) to take everyone at their word as to their reasons for accepting or rejecting propositions. Your word is a data point to me, but it's not inherently trustworthy, any more than my word should be for you.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Nope, all Im showing is the truth about you, that you really dont have any evidence to support your insane beliefs and so you keep lying.

You embarrass yourself to say this.

 

[devildavid]

Of course the same conclusion applies to both sides - that's the point. All of us make declarations about the world with motivations that we are often unaware of. It's the human condition.

And no, it's not inherently better (or worse) to take everyone at their word as to their reasons for accepting or rejecting propositions. Your word is a data point to me, but it's not inherently trustworthy, any more than my word should be for you.

What you did in your post is say that you don’t trust, in general, what atheists say is their true motivation for being atheists and they aren’t even fit to determine it. This same thing could be turned back on all theists and that they aren’t fit to know their real motivations for believing. This attitude undermines any good faith debate on the motivations of why people believe or don’t. So I would suggest taking people at their word and having a good faith debate about it, instead of pretending to know what really motivates atheists in regard to their atheism.

 

[Mulefoot]

What you did in your post is say that you don’t trust, in general, what atheists say is their true motivation for being atheists and they aren’t even fit to determine it. This same thing could be turned back on all theists and that they aren’t fit to know their real motivations for believing. This attitude undermines any good faith debate on the motivations of why people believe or don’t. So I would suggest taking people at their word and having a good faith debate about it, instead of pretending to know what really motivates atheists in regard to their atheism.

No, I specifically said "most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition". When I say most people, I mean most people. And "most people" will certainly cut across atheists and theists, black and white, male and female. Quit trying to argue against something that I'm not saying.

This attitude undermines any good faith debate on the motivations of why people believe or don’t. So I would suggest taking people at their word and having a good faith debate about it, instead of pretending to know what really motivates atheists in regard to their atheism.

Making crap up again. I never said that I know what "really motivates atheists". In fact, I never said I know what really motivates anyone. What I do know is that what we think we're motivated by, isn't always the case. That's for atheist and theists alike - again MOST PEOPLE.

If you're as interested in "good faith debate" as you claim you are, I'm sure you'll take a second look at this recent thread and realize that I did not charge atheists with something I didn't simultaneously charge theists with.

Quit mispresenting my position and move on.

 

[Galactic Spin]

No, I specifically said "most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition".

Which is unevidenced, meaningless drivel. A distraction that should have been ignored from the start as a useless red herring.

 

[Mulefoot]

Which is unevidenced, meaningless drivel. A distraction that should have been ignored from the start as a useless red herring.

Actually there are scores of studies on self-deception, but that may not be interesting to you.

What is interesting is why someone would jump into an "meaningless" conversation only to whine about how it should have been ignored from the start. That is interesting.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Actually there are scores of studies on self-deception, but that may not be interesting to you.

Which is also a useless red herring. Again, nobody should have given this any attention from the start.

I didn't say the conversation was meaningless. You have either confused yourself again or have attempted a dimestore bait and switch.

Regardless, no amount of psychobabble is going to make "its magic!" anything more than useless nonsense.

 

[Mulefoot]

Which is also a useless red herring. Again, nobody should have given this any attention from the start.

....aaaaaand here you are again, once more giving it the attention that it doesn't deserve.

Hard to stop, uh?

 

[Galactic Spin]

....aaaaaand here you are again, once more giving it the attention that it doesn't deserve.

Hard to stop, uh?

I wasn't responding to that comment, but instead your later comments. You're not good at trolling. You're better at discussion.

 

[devildavid]

No, I specifically said "most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition". When I say most people, I mean most people. And "most people" will certainly cut across atheists and theists, black and white, male and female. Quit trying to argue against something that I'm not saying.

Making crap up again. I never said that I know what "really motivates atheists". In fact, I never said I know what really motivates anyone. What I do know is that what we think we're motivated by, isn't always the case. That's for atheist and theists alike - again MOST PEOPLE.

If you're as interested in "good faith debate" as you claim you are, I'm sure you'll take a second look at this recent thread and realize that I did not charge atheists with something I didn't simultaneously charge theists with.

Quit mispresenting my position and move on.

No, you used this in the context of a discussion about why atheists are atheists. You said that the atheists that you know are all atheist because they hate believers. You never questioned theists about their real motivation for believing.

 

[PoS]

It is not that the evidence is not there for any to see. it is that it is a waste of time dealing with those who simply do nothing more than deny the evidence.

When you claim there is evidence yet fail to produce it, then its clear youre lying.

You embarrass yourself to say this.

Thanks for admitting that you love liars. Keep being you.

 

[Galactic Spin]

When you claim there is evidence yet fail to produce it, then its clear youre lying.


Thanks for admitting that you love liars. Keep being you.

Vapid, whiny troll post. Expected. Enjoy being on the wrong side of science and history. You would indeed fail any science course.

 

[soylentgreen]

When you claim there is evidence yet fail to produce it, then its clear youre lying.


Thanks for admitting that you love liars. Keep being you.

When you deny there is evidence and show not one good reason to believe you. then why would I bother to prove anything to you?

 

[PoS]

Vapid, whiny troll post. Expected. Enjoy being on the wrong side of science and history. You would indeed fail any science course.

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, so your side is no different than those who once believed in witches and demons, good job on admitting your superstitions.

When you deny there is evidence and show not one good reason to believe you. then why would I bother to prove anything to you?

When you claim there is evidence but fail to produce any then youre lying. Simple as that.

 

[devildavid]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy, so your side is no different than those who once believed in witches and demons, good job on admitting your superstitions.


When you claim there is evidence but fail to produce any then youre lying. Simple as that.

You ignore evidence when it is presented because it runs counter to your belief.

 

[Mulefoot]

You said that the atheists that you know are all atheist because they hate believers.

Show me where I said that.

You never questioned theists about their real motivation for believing.

Are you sure you want good faith discussion, David? Because these are some of my quotes on the subject.


"Again, this isn't news and these are words of many atheists. In real life, both atheism and theism are ontological positions that are often poorly established individually, and poorly thought thru - and include among other things, a mutt mixture of intellectual beliefs and emotional reactions. In short, it's complicated.

"Most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition , much less everyone else's."

Devil David: "Are you fit to judge your own motivations?" Mulefoot: "Absolutely not".

"But the motivation behind what we believe, and what we then do as a result, are far trickier. We all can be motivated to believe something or take some action, based on something that isn't even clear to ourselves."

"I've believed things and taken action with incorrect motivations. I assume I'm probably in pretty good company."

"We are often self-deceptive in order to gravitate towards some reward or away from some punishment. Not always, but often."

"Of course the same conclusion applies to both sides - that's the point. All of us make declarations about the world with motivations that we are often unaware of. It's the human condition."

 

[soylentgreen]

When you claim there is evidence but fail to produce any then youre lying. Simple as that.

When you can give me one good reason to indulge a conspiracy nutter.

 

[Galactic Spin]

Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy

Well thank goodness nobody is doing that. The consensus arises from the evidence. Not the other way around.

And you are free to go get an education and do research to challenge it. So is everyone else.

So spare me your whi ing. You are on the outside looking in because you are wrong and know less than nothing about any of it anyway. That's your fault. Nobody else's.

 

[devildavid]

Show me where I said that.


Are you sure you want good faith discussion, David? Because these are some of my quotes on the subject.


"Again, this isn't news and these are words of many atheists. In real life, both atheism and theism are ontological positions that are often poorly established individually, and poorly thought thru - and include among other things, a mutt mixture of intellectual beliefs and emotional reactions. In short, it's complicated.

"Most people aren't fit to judge their own motivations for believing/accepting/rejecting some sundry proposition , much less everyone else's."

Devil David: "Are you fit to judge your own motivations?" Mulefoot: "Absolutely not".

"But the motivation behind what we believe, and what we then do as a result, are far trickier. We all can be motivated to believe something or take some action, based on something that isn't even clear to ourselves."

"I've believed things and taken action with incorrect motivations. I assume I'm probably in pretty good company."

"We are often self-deceptive in order to gravitate towards some reward or away from some punishment. Not always, but often."

"Of course the same conclusion applies to both sides - that's the point. All of us make declarations about the world with motivations that we are often unaware of. It's the human condition."

No thanks. Most atheists I know are atheists because their parents were jerks. Not exactly the most unbiased grounds for rejecting God.

Just what I said. Many atheists are biased against God because of people that believe in him. This isn't new.

Here ya go.