It seems to me - outside the US at least - a bit odd to define yourself in terms of a belief you don't hold. As I have rather tediously reiterated, I do not put myself down as an anti-phlogistonist or an a-flat-earther. — iolo

I find it much more odd to decide to refrain from using the term which is most commonly used just because you have a chip on your shoulder.

Also, you're deliberately picking funny-sounding terms which aren't actually in use. Would you also have a problem calling yourself an ethical anti-realist, an anti-fracker, an anti-natalist, or an anti-establishmentarian, if you were of those positions?

It's worth recalling that in the Analogy of the Divided Line, which is the central to Platonic metaphysics and epistemology, that whilst knowledge of maths and geometry (dianoia) is higher than mere opinion or belief (pistis or doxa), it's still not quite so high as knowledge of the ideas (noesis). I am inclined to think that what this refers to has actually been altogether forgotten by modern culture - so, to us, it appears a nothing, a non-entity, nonsense. But that's because we're configured to think in certain ways. This is why critical philosophy really is critical - it calls into question most of what sober and sensible people take for granted. — Wayfarer

Is there a critical basis behind your seeming favouritism towards old Platonic metaphysics? Maybe it has been forgotten for a reason. Maybe it has long since been superseded.

Your name is Gerald.

Peas.

Wrong. You dont even like vegetables. Meat is no ones friend but for the devils forked feet.

(I think that's right, not sure exactly how to play but that makes as much sense as any two thoughts T Clark has expressed. Do I win anything?) — DingoJones

You're right, I don't like vegetables. I like fruits, such as apples, oranges, bananas, strawberries, and broccoli.

You win a shrubbery.

For what it's worth, I include atheism as one of the religious beliefs that deserves protection. — T Clark

I count broccoli amongst my favourite fruits.

I disagree. — T Clark

Yeah, well, your father smelt of elderberries.

"show they are true" can also be interpreted both ways..... Either empirical or axiomatic proof. I was saying that you can't prove newton's laws axiomatically in the same way you can prove that the sum of angles in a triangle is always 180. — khaled

No, it can't really be interpreted both ways when the context is clearly science, not maths.

I'm still waiting.

And do come with something tangible rather than insults and opinions. — Tzeentch

What are you waiting for? This has been a case of mission easily accomplished. That you've decided not to accept the obvious isn't really my problem, it's yours.

That IS the least risky option though. — khaled

No, it isn't. That suggests that the parent or legal guardian is infallible when they make those difficult judgement calls, which is simply absurd.

That's not what my analogies are like though. The things being compared share common features, it's just that one is extreme. Fish and dogs don't share any common features. — khaled

The irony. :lol:

Well, at least you have a rough understanding of the problem with bad analogies. But I can't be bothered to keep going into the details every time you put one to me. It's just another fish-dog each time, and it gets tiring.

His mother was a hamster.

I don't know. Do you have any candidates for other beliefs that might deserve special treatment? — T Clark

Sure, but that's beside the point. I'm not saying that there should be no beliefs which deserve special treatment of the kind that you're talking about. I'm saying that religious beliefs don't deserve that kind of special treatment over and above non-religious beliefs. In fact, not only do they not deserve special treatment in the sense of which you're speaking, some of them actually deserve to be strongly condemned, criticised, or made fun of, including the examples I put to you earlier.

You must not be very good at logic, because you don't seem to understand that it only takes a single counterexample to refute your original claim. That you can present examples that are consistent with your claim is of no logical relevance in this context.

And only an idiot would dispute that it's gullible to believe that Jesus walked on water. Are you an idiot? Serious question.

Also, you've committed the unforgivable of sin of using "i.e." when you should have used "e.g.".

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

Wait. Let me give this a go. You're suggesting that, because the non-religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because the religious have been persecuted throughout history, and because religious zealots would silence criticism or expressions of nonconformity with their religion, and because militant atheists would silence religious expression, it is only the religious who deserve special treatment?

Although many of my posts this morning have been facetious and sarcastic, I want to give this a serious answer.

Throughout history people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs. Tortured, killed, enslaved. Yes, I recognize that, in many cases, the persecution has come at the hands of followers of other religions. That is why the foundational protections for religious belief in the US Constitution are so important. The first amendment, the first and most important of the rights in the Bill of Rights, protects religious belief and freedom of speech. In truth, they are the same thing.

Rabid attacks by atheists on religion have a goal - to exclude religious believers and their values from public life. Not torture, death, or slavery - just disenfranchisement. It's worth resisting that goal. — T Clark

I don't think that that answers my question. You said that religious beliefs deserve special respect and tolerance, and the suggestion, given that you specified religious beliefs, is that they deserve special respect and tolerance over and above non-religious beliefs. Is that what you meant to suggest, or was your specific mention of religious beliefs redundant?

Thank you for confirming that you didn't get as far as even the fourth post from the opening post. There's only like five or so sentences between the opening post and his clarification.

Give an example of it being false. — khaled

Give one yourself. All you have to do is think of a situation where the parents make a decision based on what they consider to be best for the child where that doesn't necessarily match up with the least risky option. I don't see why I should keep having to put the effort in to refute your overblown claims when the burden lies with the person who makes those claims in the first place.

Why is this one a false analogy do you mind explaining? — khaled

Yes, I do mind explaining, because your analogies are half-arsed.

A fish is just like a dog! Explain to me why that's a poor comparison. And then when you're done with that, I've got another one. And another one after that.

I do reckon that if the shoe was on the other foot, and someone like me or you had made those kind of comments about many people with religious beliefs, then he would find it objectionable, and wouldn't be calling them respectful or expressing his general agreement.

Does this mean you don't want to be our mascot? — T Clark

Depends. How much are you going to pay me?

Nuh unh. You get one "Nuh unh," then that's enough. — T Clark

Well, if you still genuinely don't agree, then I think that indicates that you can't see it from the other side because of bias.

So it's not patronising to be characterised as having a problem with religion not on any intellectual basis, but because of a 'fear of religion', like a phobia or a prejudice? Or because you aren't open minded enough to explore the matter, or because you're unwilling to do so or not interested? I don't think that that's fair, and I do find that patronising.

Wayfarer's post was respectful of anti-religionists and proposed peaceful coexistence. I agreed with that sentiment. — T Clark

I wouldn't exactly say that it was respectful, because it was patronising in much the same way that you might object to the language used in the comments you quoted in your opening post as patronising.

I'm shocked, shocked! — T Clark

So anyway, why do think that, for example, the religious belief that Jesus walked on water, or the religious belief that God hates fags, deserve special respect and tolerance over non-religious beliefs such as the non-religious belief that Jesus, being just a human, could not have walked on water, and the non-religious belief that homosexuals are just fine, and God doesn't hate them because God doesn't even exist?

I was trying to be pointed and direct. Apparently I wasn't clear. I believe religious beliefs are special and deserve special respect and tolerance. — T Clark

Okay. I don't.

It's about those who troll such threads, with the intention of preventing the discussion of (what they see as) 'nonsense'. — Pattern-chaser

That doesn't really make any sense. How can they prevent discussion?

The UK could quite possibly have had a million or two Turkish people coming in, with no way of controlling it.
— Punshhh

Could you explain why that's problematic? Is it a problem with resources to accommodate the immigrants? — frank

It's a problem because studies show that the contributions of EU migrant workers constitute a net benefit to the UK economy, and a good economy is a bad thing apparently, because errrrgh, foreigners, get out arrrr maaaah couuunnntttry!!

The question has an answer which can be googled. This isn't even philosophy.

There's constructive criticism and then there's whining.
And whining turns discussions in to gang wars. — Shamshir

And yours falls under the latter?

I'm a quasi-god-mongerer. That means I monger God in a quasi way, not that I monger quasi-gods, although maybe I do that as well. Anyway, this forum is way less religion-bashing than the last one (Paul's forum) it seems to me, and I actually miss the rabid attacks a bit, although they did go too far sometimes. I think crappy ideas should be strongly criticised. I miss getting my panpsychism bashed. Apo was the last person to have a go and he seems to have fucked off. Nobody gives a shit that I'm wrong any more. Worse, panpsychism may be becoming popular, which means I may have to adopt another view. — bert1

I'm still here. I'm always willing to give panpsychism and other crappy ideas a good bashing.

You could be skeptical, focus on their justification or lack of it. Point out logic flaws or unsupported assumptions. Avoid calling them or their ideas stupid. IOW role model rational thinking for people you think are being irrational about whatever the issue is.

If someone is pressuring you to hug people, just ignore them. — Coben

I hear you loud and clear: threaten them with extreme violence.

If the difference is so obvious, please show it to me.

As far as I am concerned, in both cases one is reading words and choosing to believe them or not. — Tzeentch

First of all, beliefs aren't chosen. I don't know why this category error is so prevalent.

Secondly, the obvious difference between believing the one compared to believing the other consists in how gullible you are. The religious text is about an implausible supernatural event, and the historical account is of a plausible natural event. You'd have to be really gullible to believe the former, whereas the latter is reasonable to believe.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.

My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-)
— Wayfarer

Generally I agree. — T Clark

Ha. Straight from the horses mouth. So you're just as bad as those "anti-religionists". You too are a hypocrite. You see the other side as prejudiced, closed minded. Yet in your opening post you quote what we're apparently supposed to see as offending material consisting of someone calling the other side illogical and so on. So it's only wrong when they do this sort of thing, because... they're "anti-religionists"? When it's coming from your own side, you have no objection and generally agree.

The first forum I signed up to was the Dawkins forum. That was an absolutely seething hotbed of 'fear of religion'.

My feeling is, many people believe the whole 'religion' thing has been settled, 'science has shown that God is dead', and they really don't want to re-open the whole can of worms. Either that, or they're just not interested in spiritual and/or religious ideas. But since then, I have gotten over the need to persuade people of my views. I put the arguments, but past a certain point I desist.It's like the little old lady who rings the television station to complain about a risque television show - the advice is 'just don't watch it'. ;-) — Wayfarer

The irony is that you're just as bad as those people on the other side in terms of the patronising way that you view them.

Segregation is wrong, but if you're going to do it, it's anti-religionists who should be segregated because they are the primary cause of conflict and disruption. I stand by that judgment. — T Clark

I stand by what Artemis said, which is that people opposed to those conflicted conversations can just self-segregate themselves from the offending threads.

You said religious ideas are not special. I described why they are, at least in the US. You can argue they should't be, but they are. — T Clark

He actually said that religious ideas aren't special in the sense that a bad idea is a bad idea, and he's right. You just seem to be talking past him rather than arguing against him on that point.

Didn't you read past the opening post? He clarified that by "prove", he means show to be the case. And we're obviously talking about science, not maths. This can and has been done with regards to Newton's three laws of motion, for example.

In summary, Newton's laws boil down to f=ma. An enormous quantity of physical science has been developed by applying this simple mathematical law to different physical situations.

Newton's Three Laws of Motion.

The correct answer isn't, "You can't". It's, "They have been".

Where did you get that I was appealing to consequentialism? — khaled

I didn't. You've misunderstood. That was just a counterargument.

And for all of those cases where putting a child through surgery is considered to be ok is when the risk of not going through surgery Trumps the risk of going through surgery. — khaled

False.

You wouldn't consider it moral for parents to force their children to go through a surgery that replaces their hands with hooves for example would you? — khaled

Another false analogy. You're really bad at analogies.

The only situation where people find it ok to put children through surgery is when the surgery is the least risky option. — khaled

Basically a repetition of the same false assertion.

I don't agree that that's a miracle. That's just calling something currently unknown a miracle. A miracle would have to be more than that.

If you think it's so absurd, you probably haven't deliberated upon the subject enough. — Tzeentch

No, it's because I have the required critical thinking skills, whereas you do not. There's an obvious difference between believing, say, Matthew 14:22-33, about Jesus walking on water, and believing historical accounts about prisoners being locked in a dark chamber for several days in Block 11 of Auschwitz concentration camp. And that's just one example of many. Your statement is false, and obviously so.

Although as noted, Jacalyn Duffyn professes atheism herself - she simply notes that these cases defy scientific explanation. — Wayfarer

Well, those cases that the article mentions number in the hundreds. They’re documented and have been subjected to expert testimony. So they are a body of evidence that something has occurred which can’t be accounted for in scientific terms. I mentioned it because the OP seems to assume there is no evidence of any kind, but there actually is. — Wayfarer

No, I don't think that anyone is denying that there are a comparatively tiny number of cases where there is yet to be an adequate explanation.

Once again, that's not evidence of miracles.

well, like children who remember their last lives, we know it can’t be real, right? It doesn’t fit in with our picture of the world so it can’t happen. Sort of a ‘no gap’ theory. — Wayfarer

Sure. Or you could take on board my actual criticism.