A well put statement

[tomgwyther]

I wouldn't usually post the video opinion of another to start a thread, but I feel it does make it clear how myself and many others feel when confronting questions such as

"You are rejecting faith." Or

"You are rejecting God."

The video explains how one persons rejection of another's faith is - at least in part - a rejection of their ego. It describes how disagreeing with a person's faith, or assumptions therein, is not necessarily attacking the individual making the claim.

 

 

 

In light of some of the topics discussed recently, I feel it prudent to explain why many members of SFN post as they do.

Edited February 16, 2012 by tomgwyther

[dimreepr]

I wouldn't usually post the video opinion of another to start a thread, but I feel it does make it clear how myself and many others feel when confronting questions such as

"You are rejecting faith." Or

"You are rejecting God."

The video explains how one persons rejection of another's faith is - at least in part - a rejection of their ego. It describes how disagreeing with a person's faith, or assumptions therein, is not necessarily attacking the individual making the claim.

 

 

 

In light of some of the topics discussed recently, I feel it prudent to explain why many members of SFN post as they do.

 

 

An exellent video, a well presented argument, I wonder why njaohnt hasn't responded yet?

[Villain]

Watch the video and substitute Gloria with the word Science .

[imatfaal]

Watch the video and substitute Gloria with the word Science .

 

You should read the opinions, answers, and arguments on the science boards above - and really ask yourself these people are unquestioning quasi-religious scientific zealots. You can continue to equate science and religion, to claim they are similar backgrounds in faith, and that both deserve the same amount of credence; but frankly anyone who has ever worked in science, or with scientists will quickly realise that your contention is nonsense - the gulf between science is so large as to render facile any comparison.

[rajakrsna]

Atheists, in my opinion, have God in the back of their minds. When Anthony rejected Theresa it was not because Theresa was a theist and Anthony was an atheist. Anthony simply was not physically attracted to Theresa. There was in Anthony the absence of this irresistible force that even an atheist can not resist if the object of his desire is a theist. The element that was absent in Anthony why Theresa felt resentment towards the guy is LOVE. The video

did not present the most important of human emotions why two people of the opposite sex feels attracted to one another or both- one is an atheist and the other is a theist. Theresa felt rejected because she was in LOVE with Anthony. Women in fact do not give a damn what men believe or what they don`t believe. What matters to women is whether men like Anthony are able to return the LOVE women offer and give to men they desire. Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[imatfaal]

Atheists, in my opinion, have God in the back of their minds. When Anthony rejected Theresa it was not because Theresa was a theist and Anthony was an atheist. Anthony simply was not physically attracted to Theresa. There was in Anthony the absence of this irresistible force that even an atheist can not resist if the object of his desire is a theist. The element that was absent in Anthony why Theresa felt resentment towards the guy is LOVE. The video

did not present the most important of human emotions why two people of the opposite sex feels attracted to one another or both- one is an atheist and the other is a theist. Theresa felt rejected because she was in LOVE with Anthony. Women in fact do not give a damn what men believe or what they don`t believe. What matters to women is whether men like Anthony are able to return the LOVE women offer and give to men they desire.

 

The rejection of Theresa by Anthony in the very first scene was to do with attraction/love - the further interaction with Theresa and with Gloria were analogies that provided a parallel between how a person feels when rejected and how a theist might feel when they first understand that some people do not believe in God.

 

Atheists, like me, have God on their minds in special situations; I am arguing about religion, I could not do this without a concept (albeit a negative one) in my mind. But in my daily life I can quite categorically say that God has no influence on, or even presence in my thoughts.

[rajakrsna]

The rejection of Theresa by Anthony in the very first scene was to do with attraction/love - the further interaction with Theresa and with Gloria were analogies that provided a parallel between how a person feels when rejected and how a theist might feel when they first understand that some people do not believe in God.

 

Atheists, like me, have God on their minds in special situations; I am arguing about religion, I could not do this without a concept (albeit a negative one) in my mind. But in my daily life I can quite categorically say that God has no influence on, or even presence in my thoughts.

 

 

If you don`t believe in God perhaps you believe there`s such a thing - a human emotion we call " LOVE". We believers have a slogan for that" God is Love."

Edited March 9, 2012 by rajakrsna

[Villain]

You should read the opinions, answers, and arguments on the science boards above - and really ask yourself these people are unquestioning quasi-religious scientific zealots. You can continue to equate science and religion, to claim they are similar backgrounds in faith, and that both deserve the same amount of credence; but frankly anyone who has ever worked in science, or with scientists will quickly realise that your contention is nonsense - the gulf between science is so large as to render facile any comparison.

 

My point was that you can replace religion or God (aka Grace in the video) with anything on which two people disagree and the video will hold true. The fact that you reply exactly as the video says is both priceless and serves of evidence of this. It is you who compared the two.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Slight tangent:

You can use science just as easily without believing it.

Study the laws of logic, get a handle on the principle of induction, then take a set of axioms and possibly some hypothesis (whether or not you agree with any of them) and see where they lead.

This is something you can quite easily choose to or not to do.

 

You're right in that much of what you encounter in school or pop-science is analogous to being told about Gloria, but if you so desire you can meet Gloria and even dissect her into millions of tiny pieces to see how suitable she is.

Not only that, you can get rid of the bad pieces, and then everyone is happier.

[rajakrsna]

Slight tangent:

You can use science just as easily without believing it.

Study the laws of logic, get a handle on the principle of induction, then take a set of axioms and possibly some hypothesis (whether or not you agree with any of them) and see where they lead.

This is something you can quite easily choose to or not to do.

 

You're right in that much of what you encounter in school or pop-science is analogous to being told about Gloria, but if you so desire you can meet Gloria and even dissect her into millions of tiny pieces to see how suitable she is.

Not only that, you can get rid of the bad pieces, and then everyone is happier.

 

 

That`s the problem of scientists. They don`t know how to think like a human being. A human being has a heart.

 

 

 

[Schrödinger's hat]

That`s the problem of scientists. They don`t know how to think like a human being. A human being has a heart.

 

A heart is little use in figuring out the universe.

Very good for gaping in wonder at what you've discovered though. There's beauty and elegance in pretty much every field of science, much of which can only start to be hinted at to the layman. I do not need a magic man for this. I actually find the idea of attributing everything to one somewhat belittling.

 

The fact that we take the road of cold hard logic to get there doesn't lessen it in the slightest. The elegance of doing so has a beauty of its own.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Schrödinger's hat

[JMJones0424]

That`s the problem of scientists. They don`t know how to think like a human being. A human being has a heart.

 

 

A heart is little use in figuring out the universe. Very good for gaping in wonder at what you've discovered though. There's beauty and elegance in pretty much every field of science, much of which can only start to be hinted at to the layman. I do not need a magic man for this. I actually find the idea of attributing everything to one somewhat belittling. The fact that we take the road of cold hard logic to get there doesn't lessen it in the slightest. The elegance of doing so has a beauty of its own.

 

YES! Why is it that the religious (or "spiritual" if you like to be equally irrational yet somehow contrarian) feel that those who do not wish to obscure understanding with fairy tales are somehow cold and without wonder? I feel sorry for those who feel that acceptance of mythology is somehow equivalent to appreciation of the wonder and complexity of the world around us. Why is ignorance and mysticism exhaulted by the "spiritual"? Why do the religious assume scientists lack an appreciation for beauty? What scientists lack is an appreciation for fables as an accurate description of the world around us. I don't see that as detrimental at all. In fact, it allows a more accurate, and indeed, appropriate, appreciation of the absolutely astonishing beauty of the cosmos.

 

Perhaps you are comfortable in ignorance. I do not see the beauty in fairy tales that purport to explain the world around me. I value truth, not platitudes. I value reality, not make believe. I value nature, not your mythology.

Edited March 9, 2012 by JMJones0424

[imatfaal]

My point was that you can replace religion or God (aka Grace in the video) with anything on which two people disagree and the video will hold true. The fact that you reply exactly as the video says is both priceless and serves of evidence of this. It is you who compared the two.

 

Again, I understood your argument - but it is just not true. If it is could you point out my emotional response? No.

 

Most disagreements will not engender feelings of rejection or bitterness - my closest friend and I agree on very little politics and we argue vociferously. But the emotional bond in that situation is that between the friends - not between me and my political feeling or he and his - and the bond is not threatened by a lack of common ground in economics. Devout and faithful believers in God have a strong emotional attachment to their God; this is where the rejection springs from. You have misunderstand me, I do this mainly because I enjoy the process of debate and the intellectual rigour of argument; you do it (I believe) because of a deeply held faith. I have no emotional capital tied up in the argument and as such cannot react the way Theresa did.

 

One thing I do passionately believe in is the power of free open rational debate, I think to-and-fros like this help to develop and evolve ideas and possible even solutions to society's ills; but even if you criticised that, as someone I have had no personal dealings with, and not even a long term fellow member of the forum I don't believe you could evoke any real emotional response - except perhaps a slight sadness that I could not persuade you of an argument with such merit.

 

So, on both counts; the connection between me and what I argue for, and secondly the relationship between me and thee, there is no basis for a feeling of rejection, of bitterness etc. That the fact that an atheist happens not to believe in God DOES engender these emotions in many theists is the whole point of the video; which it seems you have entirely missed.

[Keenidiot]

That`s the problem of scientists. They don`t know how to think like a human being. A human being has a heart.

 

 

 

 

Yeah, Carl Sagan, Neil Tyson, heartless bastards, both of 'em.

[rajakrsna]

A heart is little use in figuring out the universe.

Very good for gaping in wonder at what you've discovered though. There's beauty and elegance in pretty much every field of science, much of which can only start to be hinted at to the layman. I do not need a magic man for this. I actually find the idea of attributing everything to one somewhat belittling.

 

The fact that we take the road of cold hard logic to get there doesn't lessen it in the slightest. The elegance of doing so has a beauty of its own.

 

 

Scientists feel superiority when they dish out words lay people do not understand. I was before that way. Shooting people with words from medical books which they simply do not understand. Words such as plasmodial septic zinc-resistant garbage are sound vibrations to alienate one who do not belong to their kind. I`m not impressed with scientists or physicists whatever retrieving words foreign to most who have not Google-searched it. Thus, it`s something what I learned is to be humble when dealing with people-the poorest of them all, the downtrodden, the sick, the imprisoned, the damn, etc. While scientists and physicists confined themselves inside airconditioned rooms and laboratories, peeking at a piece of glass which is connected to a telescope worth billions of wasted dollars looking at the sky for nothing. They should my advice is to look inside within themselves not outside. There`s new frontier in vivo in the human body worthy of exploration. There they will find God sitting in his majestic throne ( sino-atrial node). To quote St. Exupery in the book Little Prince " It is only in the heart one can see clearly what`s essential is invisible to the eye."

Edited March 10, 2012 by rajakrsna

[zapatos]

Scientists feel superiority when they dish out words lay people do not understand. I was before that way. Shooting people with words from medical books which they simply do not understand. Words such as plasmodial septic zinc-resistant garbage are sound vibrations to alienate one who do not belong to their kind. I`m not impressed with scientists or physicists whatever retrieving words foreign to most who have not Google-searched it. Thus, it`s something what I learned is to be humble when dealing with people-the poorest of them all, the downtrodden, the sick, the imprisoned, the damn, etc. While scientists and physicists confined themselves inside airconditioned rooms and laboratories, peeking at a piece of glass which is connected to a telescope worth billions of wasted dollars looking at the sky for nothing. They should my advice is to look inside within themselves not outside. There`s new frontier in vivo in the human body worthy of exploration. There they will find God sitting in his majestic throne ( sino-atrial node). To quote St. Exupery in the book Little Prince " It is only in the heart one can see clearly what`s essential is invisible to the eye."

Are you always this insulting?

[rajakrsna]

Are you always this insulting?

 

 

It`s a human trait. It`s man`s nature. But when it`s abused then that`s a different story.

 

 

 

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

Keep the conversation on topic and civil, please.

[Schrödinger's hat]

Scientists feel superiority when they dish out words lay people do not understand. I was before that way. Shooting people with words from medical books which they simply do not understand. Words such as plasmodial septic zinc-resistant garbage are sound vibrations to alienate one who do not belong to their kind. I`m not impressed with scientists or physicists whatever retrieving words foreign to most who have not Google-searched it. Thus, it`s something what I learned is to be humble when dealing with people-the poorest of them all, the downtrodden, the sick, the imprisoned, the damn, etc. While scientists and physicists confined themselves inside airconditioned rooms and laboratories, peeking at a piece of glass which is connected to a telescope worth billions of wasted dollars looking at the sky for nothing. They should my advice is to look inside within themselves not outside. There`s new frontier in vivo in the human body worthy of exploration. There they will find God sitting in his majestic throne ( sino-atrial node). To quote St. Exupery in the book Little Prince " It is only in the heart one can see clearly what`s essential is invisible to the eye."

 

Please. If you do not understand the comic, then ask and someone will explain. Even without understanding the details of what the characters are saying the point is still there.

The joke is that the light haired character is complaining about scientists taking the wonder out of everything by studying it.

Then the dark haired character comes in, very excited about details that would be thought of as extremely boring by most people. She then goes on to say how beautiful something that is essentially a lump of slime is.

The point it is raising is that the scientist, in studying all the details, sees beauty where others do not.

[Villain]

Most disagreements will not engender feelings of rejection or bitterness - my closest friend and I agree on very little politics and we argue vociferously. But the emotional bond in that situation is that between the friends - not between me and my political feeling or he and his - and the bond is not threatened by a lack of common ground in economics.

 

 

 

 

I am struggling to understand your concept of apathetic disagreement, could you expand on this. Please focus the explanation on the motivation of the apathetic arguer.

Edited March 10, 2012 by Villain

[Moontanman]

If you don`t believe in God perhaps you believe there`s such a thing - a human emotion we call " LOVE". We believers have a slogan for that" God is Love."

 

 

Yes, god is love, he loves to see us kill and conquer, rape and pillage, keep slaves, use underage girls as sex slaves, he loves for us to commit genocide and for some reason kill the animals of the people he wants us to destroy, yes god is love... unless of course you worship the wrong god or worship the right god in the wrong way. God is obviously not love. Just because you've been told god is love all your life and had small cherry pickled scriptures shoved at you to read all your life by some pastor or preacher doesn't make it true...

 

I wouldn't usually post the video opinion of another to start a thread, but I feel it does make it clear how myself and many others feel when confronting questions such as

"You are rejecting faith." Or

"You are rejecting God."

The video explains how one persons rejection of another's faith is - at least in part - a rejection of their ego. It describes how disagreeing with a person's faith, or assumptions therein, is not necessarily attacking the individual making the claim.

 

 

 

In light of some of the topics discussed recently, I feel it prudent to explain why many members of SFN post as they do.

 

 

Great video, darkmatter2525 is one of my favorite youtubers....

[Arete]

Scientists feel superiority when they dish out words lay people do not understand. I was before that way.

 

Before this way you mean at 1.39pm, right?

 

Well, my father a retired professor in Pathology and Dermatology was a recipient of the Leonard Wood Memorial Foundation. My father and grandfather were researching on culture media for the M. leprae to grow outside the body. My preparatory Medicine is Medical Technology and we did blood cultures, prepare agar plates, etc. My father went to the USA in West Virginia, Washington DC on a scholarship grant by the LWM Foundation. He spent doing research work on leprosy from 1960-1963.

 

Because there appears to be a fair bit of name dropping and big word using in that post, at least to me.