"Primitive" Religious/Anti-Religious Hoards and Their Impact on Governance

[iNow]

I'm saying your emotive bias creates the prejudice. Do you launch into some rant and post Youtube videos and exerpts from articles - all in response to someone's inquirey on the dangers of black cats and ladders? Seriously, I really don't know.

I think I follow your point, but all I can think of right now is this.

I don't generally have to respond that way to the suggestions of black cats and ladders. Those suggestions tend to be collectively agreed upon to be silly, and even when they are not, simple logic and evidence is generally enough to shift the poster presenting those ideas away from their position on the topic.

 

This is not (generally) the case with religion. You can spend weeks and months pointing to flawed logic and unfounded conclusions with a religious believer (and, in fact, I have repeatedly done exactly that both online and in real life) and still not make a dent in their faith-based approach. The faith is unassailable, and they're often rewarded for standing up to "tests" of their faith. They're taught that ignoring counter evidence is somehow a good thing to do.

 

That's one major difference I've personally found. I'm not saying it's some absolute truth, or anything, just that most people accept the walking below a ladder comment as silly and nonsensical, but aren't often willing to do the same when religion is involved. Historically, religion seems to receive some unearned deference, and it's granted a special sort of respect that those other topics simply are not.

 

That's one reason why they might be responded to differently in the posts and interactions about which you are commenting here. I'm really not sure. This is conjecture on my part, but I do find it to be well-founded and supportable.

 

 

 

We've talked enough that I know your take on this. We've also talked enough that we both know your aversion to religion, specifically. An aversion I thought you were rather proud of.

I don't take pride in my aversions. I take pride in my consistency, the strength of my arguments, and the passion with which I make them. I am not actually "averse" to religion, but more accurately averse to its dangerous side effects and the way it so often turns otherwise intelligent people into zombies... How it somehow makes it okay to blankly ignore counter evidence or rebutting information.

 

I don't take pride in aversions toward people. It actually causes me a great deal of inner turmoil. My disappointment with humanity on topics like this sometimes brings me near tears.

 

... but my pride is in my consistency, my arguments, and the passion with which I make them. That's where I find my pride on this issue (and perhaps the occasional times when I help someone else have an "aha" moment).

[The Bear's Key]

The quote you used to reply to my quote doesn't even address a single thing in my quote. Not sure what the point was.

I answered your quote with the one by Sisyphus, then I made a comment about that last quote.

 

We've talked enough that I know your take on this. We've also talked enough that we both know your aversion to religion, specifically. An aversion I thought you were rather proud of.

Maybe it's a symptom of the frustrations that might arise, understandably so, from living deep in Bush country? Who wouldn't go mad?

 

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

I'm not saying it's some absolute truth, or anything, just that most people accept the walking below a ladder comment as silly and nonsensical...

Yeah, if a newscaster proclaimed that walking under the ladder is a dumb superstition, they're not going to be inundated by mass compalints and phone threats.

 

Religion intrudes on the lives of so many people it's natural a great many are going to harbor deep resentment and go off wherever comments about religious "truth" enter the conversation.

 

(@anyone)...However, it does play into the hands of sly religious cons. For example, it's a mistake to wield science as a battle instrument against religion, as their fight won't be against you then, but against the whole of science. Using a bit of tact goes a long way -- to ensure you're being fair and they know what exactly you're denouncing.

Edited April 25, 2009 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'm pretty sure that the government acknowledges that walking under a ladder is bad luck, and even made some laws concerning that. Hence, fenced off construction zones and the requirement to wear helmets when in one.

[bascule]

No, but many animal rights and environmental activists will apparently commit violent, terrorist acts without an ounce of religious belief motivating their actions. So clearly religious ferver is not a prerequisite for extremism.

 

Well, yes, that would be an example of secular extremists, but they're not necessarily anti-religious...

 

The people who are against religion mostly seem to be grown ups who use their words to express themselves.

[ParanoiA]

That's one reason why they might be responded to differently in the posts and interactions about which you are commenting here. I'm really not sure. This is conjecture on my part, but I do find it to be well-founded and supportable.

 

Well that's certainly fair. I will admit, the passion possessed by a religious follower typically pales in comparison to, say, my wife's belief in ghosts.

 

Maybe it's a symptom of the frustrations that might arise, understandably so, from living deep in Bush country? Who wouldn't go mad?

 

I know when I've been bested. I cannot counter this point.