Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cthulhu]

As a theistic humanist, I think the ability to choose one's own path (Toward or away from God) is one of the most important and valuable things we have.  That's why I don't think we see obvious miracles.

[Urist McDerp]

I'm not sure if you're being tautological here.  Maybe it's not possible to eliminate group mentality completely, but it's certainly possible to have it to varying degrees, and it's possible to have it to a moderate level or an excessive level.  There's nothing hypocritical about engaging in a behaviour in a small and in your view harmless way (especially if it's a behaviour that cannot be helped) and criticising other people for doing it to a much greater (and possibly harmful) extent.  For instance, it's possible to drink in moderation and still criticise those that get completely smashed every night.

Well, I had to repeat to further clarity, as the assumption that it may not apply to someone was not true. Anyway, it's also possible to get smashed every night and remain unconvinced by others that you have a problem... and then get hostile when others suggest you have a problem, and never even admit to yourself that you may have a problem. Now, if everyone drinks and may not be immediately conscious of how drunk they are, is the real sin to drink too heavily or refuse the possibility that you may be drinking too heavily?

It's not really the varying degree of influence this group mentality may or may not have on you so much as whether or not you are conscious of it or acknowledge it's influence. No one likes to admit their reasoning faculties are imperfect. It's completely unavoidable, but this is the real "sin" of it, is denying it. This is what I find unacceptable, and what really truly annoys me.

So... yes, they may engage in "the same behaviour", but that doesn't mean they do it to the same degree as the people they're criticising.

Now you're being identifiably defensive of an abstract social identity. I can make a number of assumptions about you and your theological stances, but a I will just clarify again: the severity is not the sin. That is completely irrelevant to my claims and does not lessen the severity of the mistake. It's the fact I can't convince them it applies to them. Just as my original post concluded: "I still, to this day, have yet to convince [that one] may be prone to the same behavioral tendencies."

I'm going to make a minor prediction that you will spot the flimsy nature of my claim, as really an opinion is at heart of what is or is not the "wrong" behavior. If you do not agree that not acknowledging it is the worse sin, I have to ask, why do you resist a mere opinion such? Were you pre-disposed to oppose it? Did your subconscious set up your conclusions before you reached them?

EDIT: I just realized you were the one you retorted with "What if they refused it because it doesn't apply to them."
Were there subconscious reasons that you immediately responded with the idea that you are exempt?

Anyway, forget my whole argument and if you even object and just think of the implications of it. They drive me mad. I really don't care to argue it much, just so much as illustrate to someone what's been eating me on the topic. Terrifying isn't it?

Even right now just by being annoyed by this in others, classifying them, scrutinizing them, being pre-disposed to dis-liking them, even the conclusions about you I jump to, etc; I am in part being influenced by it myself.

I'm not really sure what you mean by "bitch fights" ... it seems to belittle the role of argument and debate in science.

Argument and debate in science often NEVER work like they ideally should. Have you ever tried to publish something controversial, or challenge an accepted belief? Yeah, you're supposed to encounter serious scrutiny and resistance in the name of scientific inquiry, but it's FAR FAR more than what you would encounter if people were robots and reaches to encompass ridiculous sociological effects. Genuine spite even. People are people, they form these social circles around beliefs, and they engage in behavior similar to what politicians and priests will do in their fields. I find it extremely petty, hence the belittling terminology.

[CoughDrop]

As a theistic humanist, I think the ability to choose one's own path (Toward or away from God) is one of the most important and valuable things we have.  That's why I don't think we see obvious miracles.

Err, what about determinism?

[Cthulhu]

I'm not a determinist.

[CoughDrop]

As a theistic humanist, I think the ability to choose one's own path (Toward or away from God) is one of the most important and valuable things we have.  That's why I don't think we see obvious miracles.

I'm not a determinist.

No matter what you do, there will be people that will never have the choice to follow a specified deity. You don't need to be a determinist to realize that.

[Leafsnail]

Well, I had to repeat to further clarity, as the assumption that it may not apply to someone was not true. Anyway, it's also possible to get smashed every night and remain unconvinced by others that you have a problem... and then get hostile when others suggest you have a problem, and never even admit to yourself that you may have a problem. Now, if everyone drinks and may not be immediately conscious of how drunk they are, is the real sin to drink too heavily or refuse the possibility that you may be drinking too heavily?

It's not really the varying degree of influence this group mentality may or may not have on you so much as whether or not you are conscious of it or acknowledge it's influence. No one likes to admit their reasoning faculties are imperfect. It's completely unavoidable, but this is the real "sin" of it, is denying it. This is what I find unacceptable, and what really truly annoys me.

I still have a problem with your overgeneralising (you can probably eliminate it, especially if you're conscious of it - I don't think many mental traits apply to the whole of humanity).  The thing about "You have a problem but you may not be aware of it" is definitely true, but I'm not sure how it's relevant to your point at all...

And I think I know why some people are refusing the "possibility" that they have this group thinking - because the way you seem to be asking the question puts them immediately on the defensive.  If you asked them "Do you have some level of group cohesion?" it'd be easier to say yes if it were explained and they agreed.  But "Do you admit that you share the same characteristics as ...?" or whatever immediately makes them think that it would be bad to respond "yes" (and that you score a victory if they do), and also implies that you'll take it that the severity of their characteristics are as bad as whatever they were criticising.  In other words... it might be that they identify a leading question (possibly loaded with additional implications) and resist it.

Sure, maybe it's illogical to be put on the defensive by a question like that, but I never said atheists are paragons of logic, and it's very difficult to respond positively to a question like that even if you agree with it.

Now you're being identifiably defensive of an abstract social identity. I can make a number of assumptions about you and your theological stances, but a I will just clarify again: the severity is not the sin. That is completely irrelevant to my claims and does not lessen the severity of the mistake. It's the fact I can't convince them it applies to them. Just as my original post concluded: "I still, to this day, have yet to convince [that one] may be prone to the same behavioral tendencies."

It's relevant though, since careless phrasing of the question will make them think that you are referring to severity.  Mainly due to the ambiguity of "same".

I'm going to make a minor prediction that you will spot the flimsy nature of my claim, as really an opinion is at heart of what is or is not the "wrong" behavior. If you do not agree that not acknowledging it is the worse sin, I have to ask, why do you resist a mere opinion such? Were you pre-disposed to oppose it? Did your subconscious set up your conclusions before you reached them?

Because I tend to respond to flimsy claims (especially if they take the form "I've never been able to convince..." since that implies that a) you're definitely right and b) the people you're talking about are too stupid to see that), yes and no (since my subconscious is part of me, if it came to a conclusion then so did I.  There'll be subconscious factors in my position, since that's how a human mind works) respectively.

EDIT: I just realized you were the one you retorted with "What if they refused it because it doesn't apply to them."
Were there subconscious reasons that you immediately responded with the idea that you are exempt?

The relevancy and validity (or lack thereof) of my point is not in any way affected by how I came up with it.  It doesn't matter whether I came up with that answer through 5 years of intense study or 1 millisecond of subconscious thought while drunk - it still deserves to be assessed on its own merits rather than mine.  Although it was mostly because I dislike "I've never been able to convince" rather than anything else.

Argument and debate in science often NEVER work like they ideally should. Have you ever tried to publish something controversial, or challenge an accepted belief? Yeah, you're supposed to encounter serious scrutiny and resistance in the name of scientific inquiry, but it's FAR FAR more than what you would encounter if people were robots and reaches to encompass ridiculous sociological effects. Genuine spite even. People are people, they form these social circles around beliefs, and they engage in behavior similar to what politicians and priests will do in their fields. I find it extremely petty, hence the belittling terminology.

The thing is, accepted scientific ideas tend to be accepted because they've made testable predictions and stood up to scrutiny.  If you're gonna challenge such an idea, you better have some evidence for it.  I'm not sure what you mean by "far more than robots"... I guess you're comparing it to if people had no emotions at all?  I'm not sure how you're privy to knowledge like this, but assuming it to be correct I'm not sure what the problem is (it also seems a bit odd that you're expecting scientists to be perfect logical robots).  If the idea is good and correct, the body of evidence will build up and the old idea should generally be supplanted eventually.

[Urist McDerp]

...overgeneralising...careless phrasing... ambiguity...I'm not sure how it's relevant...[some of my own opinions]

And then miscommunications are made, that eventually lead any argumentative conversation in a downward spiral into the dirt because people are both terrible at communication and horribly prone to becoming hostile. We are more or less at the first step. It's almost fascinating if it weren't so inconvenient.

But I don't like arguing things based on opinions because it degrades faster and can't go anywhere. I think I've illuminated the thing I wanted to illuminate well enough, or at least as well as I can given the effects in question.

I'm going to steer this towards something I've directly observed:

The thing is, accepted scientific ideas tend to be accepted because they've made testable predictions and stood up to scrutiny.  If you're gonna challenge such an idea, you better have some evidence for it.  I'm not sure what you mean by "far more than robots"... I guess you're comparing it to if people had no emotions at all?  I'm not sure how you're privy to knowledge like this, but assuming it to be correct I'm not sure what the problem is (it also seems a bit odd that you're expecting scientists to be perfect logical robots).  If the idea is good and correct, the body of evidence will build up and the old idea should generally be supplanted eventually.

Yeah that's what makes accepted ideas accepted. What I mean is that people can't completely shut out emotion when trying to use logic. As you deduced I mean that yes they are not emotionless robots. My friend the mathematician (sounds like a sitcom) gave me some insight to how the scientific community at large works. Take the cold, calculated, passive aggressiveness of young teenage girls and multiply it by the anguish of age and then add the experience that comes with scrutinizing logic as a job... yeah. They made a grown woman cry. They don't just judge your work, they judge you. There will be personal insults and various forms of petty exile in any manner they can enforce it. They will not just attack your work, they will attack you, and then you are permanently screwed over for the future because they will never forgive and never forget. They will exhibit honest spite towards you, and anything affiliated with you. War parties are formed, and jack-shit actually gets done because everyone now has an agenda.

[/world's smallest violin] She'll never know if she's right or wrong till a century after her death when both war-parties are dead and someone actually reviews it and even bothers to seriously test it.

Eventually, yes, if it is a more accurate theory than the old, eventually it will be replaced. But until then, not even super-jesus could save you from the wrath of the cult that has built up around the previous theory. You can be completely right in every way, win every logical argument, and they will resist it far far past the point of illogical arguments on their behalf. Take a look at any well entrenched theory that was proven wrong, and how long supporters of the old theory fought to the death. My personal favorite was Edison electrocuting an Elephant to death with AC to take a stab at Tesla, and the whole demonstration took advantage of the fact that very few people knew how it really worked. Kind of like politicians mud slinging themselves into retardation.

it also seems a bit odd that you're expecting scientists to be perfect logical robots

I don't though. I expect them to be aware that they are NOT perfectly logical robots. My whole previously elaborated opinion.

[Leafsnail]

Yeah that's what makes accepted ideas accepted. What I mean is that people can't completely shut out emotion when trying to use logic. As you deduced I mean that yes they are not emotionless robots. My friend the mathematician (sounds like a sitcom) gave me some insight to how the scientific community at large works. Take the cold, calculated, passive aggressiveness of young teenage girls and multiply it by the anguish of age and then add the experience that comes with scrutinizing logic as a job... yeah. They made a grown woman cry. They don't just judge your work, they judge you. There will be personal insults and various forms of petty exile in any manner they can enforce it. They will not just attack your work, they will attack you, and then you are permanently screwed over for the future because they will never forgive and never forget. They will exhibit honest spite towards you, and anything affiliated with you. War parties are formed, and jack-shit actually gets done because everyone now has an agenda.

I can't really comment unless a specific example is given.  Although I suppose someone's credibility as a scientist is, perhaps unfortunately, actually somewhat important to their research since it is possible to falsify data (and it is valid to assess someone's credibility if they're providing evidence, rather than just making an argument).

[/world's smallest violin] She'll never know if she's right or wrong till a century after her death when both war-parties are dead and someone actually reviews it and even bothers to seriously test it.

This does happen sometimes, but not always.  Generally it happens if technology has subsequently improved and one century on it's possible to provide more direct evidence for an idea.

And generally there's at least some testing of it at the time, isn't there?  For instance, when an experiment suggesting the existence of Cold Fusion (an idea challenging established science) was published, the first thing that the scientific community did was try to replicate the results (and the subsequent failure of any other team to do so is what caused the scientific community to backlash on the idea, which remains discredited to this day).

Eventually, yes, if it is a more accurate theory than the old, eventually it will be replaced. But until then, not even super-jesus could save you from the wrath of the cult that has built up around the previous theory. You can be completely right in every way, win every logical argument, and they will resist it far far past the point of illogical arguments on their behalf. Take a look at any well entrenched theory that was proven wrong, and how long supporters of the old theory fought to the death. My personal favorite was Edison electrocuting an Elephant to death with AC to take a stab at Tesla, and the whole demonstration took advantage of the fact that very few people knew how it really worked. Kind of like politicians mud slinging themselves into retardation.

I don't think that's actually a good example at all.  Edison had a huge personal financial stake in DC - his attachment to it wasn't necessarily anything to do with a "cult" built on the old theory.  Although resistance from those with financial interests or people protecting their own prestiges can obviously be a completely separate problem.

There are some examples of ideas being accepted, too (I think Einstein's caught on relatively quickly (within his lifetime, at least) despite how radical they were, for instance).

[Urist McDerp]

I can't really comment unless a specific example is given.  Although I suppose someone's credibility as a scientist is, perhaps unfortunately, actually somewhat important to their research since it is possible to falsify data (and it is valid to assess someone's credibility if they're providing evidence, rather than just making an argument).

And I can't really comment because I can't math. All I heard was her POV, which can be summed up as
"Check this out! I've logically derived some stuff that may mean we are not completely correct about-"
"GTFO. [insert sexism/racism/etc]". Personal attacks follow. Shunning commences. A few people that actually bothered to read her papers support it. Opposing party forms as well. Expected investigation and scrutiny commences, as it's supposed to. Shortly, the whole thing collapses under mudslinging very quickly and is abandoned, and standing party bars support of any further investigation and tries to sweep it under a rug by berating anyone who hints that it may be credible before any definitive results can be had. [/drama]

Credibility is very important. In example, I recall that "Vaccine = Autism!" doctor that started that whole craze was found guilty of BS-ing nearly everything and was stripped of pretty much everything they could strip. In the UK anyway. Damn straight. Falsifying data should completely destroy your credibility. It's when you do genuine science that may or may not be correct, supporters of the standing theory tend to be just as aggressive as if you were the total nut that actually deserves their spite.

You'll also end up with things that are still taboo to even discuss in the scientific community. Cold fusion is a fairly good example. No one is even going to seriously consider toying with the idea of cold fusion for a couple of centuries, even if some other breakthroughs in the nature of the universe make it sound promising by next week.

I don't think that's actually a good example at all.

Pick your own then, but yeah, greed is another flaw in human nature that muddies science as well. I guess it is a bad example in that it's a whole other can of worms of human failures in science. I just like it because he electrocuted an elephant for "science". It's amusingly absurd.

I suppose the classic example would be the Catholic church's 'science', and how long they held on to what was and has been outright disproven.

There are some examples of ideas being accepted, too

Oh yes, I don't literally mean this as an absolute, though I may sound like I imply it, that is not consciously intentional.


...
...heheheh. Greed and science. If a scientist got a nickel in funding every-time another scientist did something questionable to grub up some more funding, he'd have his own colony on Mars.

[Bohandas]

Professor Westover explains why he's an athiest 

[Siquo]

(I think Einstein's caught on relatively quickly).

This is the Pun police. Drop the pun and come out with your hands up.

Credibility is very important. In example, I recall that "Vaccine = Autism!" doctor that started that whole craze was found guilty of BS-ing nearly everything and was stripped of pretty much everything they could strip.

Isn't that almost exactly what they're doing to your mathfriend? With the added bonus that there's billions in the vaccine industry?
The problem here is that you can't trust anyone. I don't believe scientists anymore. Any of em. Egos are just as important roadblocks as money. I take it in as "information", but its truth is determined when I repeat the experiment myself.

(Also, Edison went so far as to recommend AC death sentences on people. It's still being done. Thanks, Edison.)

[Muz]

I am an atheist and I have a serious question for Theists, How Have you come to believe in a all-powerful being?

What are your reasons? and Rational?

Religion makes claims on reality, claims are proven long after they were claimed.

Some people find that a religion makes claims on reality and are proven false, therefore that religion (and to an extension all religions) = false. My religion hasn't had any claims proven false, so there. That's all there is to it

[G-Flex]

Some people find that a religion makes claims on reality and are proven false, therefore that religion (and to an extension all religions) = false. My religion hasn't had any claims proven false, so there. That's all there is to it

This seems a little shaky to me. If all that's necessary is for no claims to be proven false, you can come up with an infinite number of potential valid religions; it's not an accurate measure of, well, accuracy.

In fact, it can sometimes speak ill of a claim if the claim cannot be proven false: Usually it's not very good when a claim is untestable or non-falsifiable.

[Siquo]

In fact, it can sometimes speak ill of a claim if the claim cannot be proven false: Usually it's not very good when a claim is untestable or non-falsifiable.

That depends. "Good" is one such thing that is untestable and non-falsifiable.

However, the point is Muz did not answer the question, he answered the question "Why do you not renounce your Religion?" instead of "Why do you believe in it in the first place?".

[Leafsnail]

Credibility is very important. In example, I recall that "Vaccine = Autism!" doctor that started that whole craze was found guilty of BS-ing nearly everything and was stripped of pretty much everything they could strip.

Isn't that almost exactly what they're doing to your mathfriend? With the added bonus that there's billions in the vaccine industry?

I'm going to kindly ask that you stop the wild conspiracy theorising there.  You're making an extremely serious accusation against a lot of people, and it's complete slander unless you have evidence to back it up.

Incidentally, the problem with Andrew Wakefield himself was nothing to do with falsifying data - it was to do with the ethics of his autism study.  For the study itself, the problem with that was that he deliberately drew a conclusion that the (genuine) data could not remotely support (basically, his study took 12 children with autism, bowel problems and who had had the MMR vaccine.  Since autism is common and associated with bowel problems, and MMR had near universal coverage it was obvious that you'd be able to find 12 of these children if you spent a small amount of time looking) and the media, along with people who have kneejerk reactions against scientists, ran with this conclusion.  Thanks to this, dozens of children have pointlessly died and suffered permanent side effects because of diseases which should be virtually wiped out.

Honestly, you seem to have formed a kneejerk reaction classic in conspiracy theorists.  "There's a motive!  The big evil [insert real or imagined organization here] is crushing the little guy!".  Especially since there's rather a lot of evidence to suggest malpractise on Wakefield's part...

That depends. "Good" is one such thing that is untestable and non-falsifiable.

Tautology.  A religion makes an objective claim about the world (that there is a god of some kind is often part of it), wheras "good" is a description.