tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post5063421505458920410..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: The downside of ridiculeVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-49396206677033761302012-06-15T15:34:23.219-07:002012-06-15T15:34:23.219-07:00Paps,
Nope. I can you see you READ what I said. N...<b>Paps</b>,<br /><br />Nope. I can you see you READ what I said. Now, try to UNDERSTAND it. I'm willing to make an exception to my general rule of ignoring you here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-6312776607181437112012-06-15T13:50:12.328-07:002012-06-15T13:50:12.328-07:00So, a devout christian is now defined as one that ...So, a devout christian is now defined as one that believes in a Moralistic Therapeutic Deism? <br /><br />Shrugs. <i>"Whatever"</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76691549268992865182012-06-14T21:30:26.678-07:002012-06-14T21:30:26.678-07:00Thanks for confirming the point, Paps. Even if we ...Thanks for confirming the point, Paps. Even if we accept your research uncritically, 4 of 5 criteria of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism are wholly incompatible with atheism. Furthermore, a devout Christian will, by default, fulfill all 5 criteria.<br /><br />So, the net result remains: according to this scientific evidence, children brought up with faith fare better than children brought up without faith. In other words, Dawkins' rant about "child abuse" is just unfounded, unscientific bigotry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-36125821987845493302012-06-14T18:17:00.434-07:002012-06-14T18:17:00.434-07:00""This study sorted its 3,290 participan...<i>""This study sorted its 3,290 participants into levels of religious involvement: the Devoted, the Regulars, the Sporadic, and the Disengaged. Because America’s predominant religious groupings are Christian, the “Devoted” and “Regulars” were predominantly Christian—Protestant and Catholic. ............... On page after page, chart after chart, on every one of the ninety-one variables studied, the closer teens were to the “Devoted” end of the scale, the healthier their lives were.."</i><br /><br />Christian Smith,researcher; "Smith's larger theoretical agenda has been to move culture, morality, and identity to the center of sociological theorizing generally and the sociology of religion specifically."<br /><br /> http://www.nd.edu/~csmith22/<br /><br />About his agenda? Nuff said?<br /><br /><br />A most interesting review of the study here [by Albert Mohler, no less]:<br />http://www.christianpost.com/news/moralistic-therapeutic-deism-the-new-american-religion-6266/<br /><br /><i>"When Christian Smith and his fellow researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill took a close look at the religious beliefs held by American teenagers, they found that the faith held and described by most adolescents came down to something the researchers identified as "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."<br />As described by Smith and his team, Moralistic Therapeutic Deism consists of beliefs like these: 1. "A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth." 2. "God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions." 3. "The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself." 4. "God does not need to be particularly involved in one's life except when God is needed to resolve a problem." 5. "Good people go to heaven when they die."<br />That, in sum, is the creed to which much adolescent faith can be reduced. After conducting more than 3,000 interviews with American adolescents, the researchers reported that, when it came to the most crucial questions of faith and beliefs, many adolescents responded with a shrug and "whatever."</i>Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60168421892750072752012-06-14T16:46:52.530-07:002012-06-14T16:46:52.530-07:00@Jonathan MS Pearce:
After using the qualifier &q...@Jonathan MS Pearce:<br /><br />After using the qualifier "hack", I explained it. Maybe I should have been more explicit.<br /><br />My field not being history, I am not competent to judge his work. With this caveat, and having read the rebuttals, I would say in a charitable spirit that he is not convincing.<br /><br />"grodrigues, what of his have you read?"<br /><br />"Not the impossible faith", "Why I am not a Christian", his articles in J. Loftus' "The end of Christianity" and various other bits and pieces. In other words, more than my stomach can handle.grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-79442787354347151122012-06-14T16:32:27.559-07:002012-06-14T16:32:27.559-07:00Karl Grant,
"By the way, does anybody else f...<b>Karl Grant</b>,<br /><br /><i>"By the way, does anybody else find it ironic that for a movement that claims to be a bastion of logic and rationality, the current crop of atheists seem blissfully unaware that appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy?"</i><br /><br />Well, yeah, but... I've noticed it's only a logical fallacy when it's aimed at them. If you ridicule them, they'll often kick you off their blog, or make some retort along the lines of, "Oh, what's the matter Christian, can't come up with a good argument so you have to call us names?" But then you'll find them out there mocking and insulting Christians, or applauding people like Snoop Dogg for mocking Tebow, demanding that we take *THEIR* mockery seriously because they're some oppressed minority or something.<br /><br />oeigh;shiha<br /><br />Sorry, that last line came out wrong because I just puked.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-26636636846329637972012-06-14T16:10:34.414-07:002012-06-14T16:10:34.414-07:00Ridicule is the death of reason. We are no longer ...<i>Ridicule is the death of reason. We are no longer in the age of Jeopardy where contestants are rewarded for the correct answer. We are in the age of Family Feud where popularity determines what is right. Ridicule only works if you are willing to change your conviction based on what others think of you."</i><br /><br />Well said, Mike. <br /><br />By the way, does anybody else find it ironic that for a movement that claims to be a bastion of logic and rationality, the current crop of atheists seem blissfully unaware that appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17489549596212184002012-06-14T14:05:19.537-07:002012-06-14T14:05:19.537-07:00@ Mike:
LOL! I posted before I saw your changed m...@ Mike:<br /><br />LOL! I posted before I saw your changed mind comment.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-82032608543350274002012-06-14T14:04:00.575-07:002012-06-14T14:04:00.575-07:00Mike Darus,
Fair enough, that's about what I ...<b>Mike Darus</b>,<br /><br />Fair enough, that's about what I expected you'd say. I'm still trying to figure out where I stand on this. Like I said, I think I've become jaded from years of combox argumentation with people who mock and ridicule. <br /><br />Although, I have to ask: What do you think about Jesus calling the Pharisees "vipers" and whatnot? Or children of the devil? How does that tie into things, in your opinion? Clearly the Lord saw a place for strong language, but, then again, the Lord also retains that right and I'm perfectly fine with accepting that such a right might be too risky of a responsibility for fallible human beings. Especially a natural born hothead like myself.<br /><br />Also, your comment testifies to the strength and truth of your previous comment I cited. Because you spoke politely but honestly and forcefully, with respect, I was much more open to what you had to say. Had you fired back something like, "Your comment was obvious ridicule you moron," that probably would have built a bigger wall and decreased the chance of your message falling on fertile soil... very interesting, to say the least.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41820709308481879772012-06-14T13:56:24.121-07:002012-06-14T13:56:24.121-07:00cl:
I changed my mind. Your post is fine the way ...cl:<br />I changed my mind. Your post is fine the way it is. I will now be the ridicule police.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39860038105846251752012-06-14T13:53:36.568-07:002012-06-14T13:53:36.568-07:00sorry , "attacks". We used to be able to...sorry , "attacks". We used to be able to edit after posting.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52342755637635271502012-06-14T13:53:31.418-07:002012-06-14T13:53:31.418-07:00William,
Such vituperativeness. You guys deserve ...William,<br /><br /><i>Such vituperativeness. You guys deserve Carrier to match your style :)</i><br /><br />That's pretty much the point, believe it or not. At least from my view.<br /><br />Carrier is the last guy who should be justifying the use of mockery and ridicule in these discussions, because he happens to be an easy target.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91115466762979408462012-06-14T13:52:31.973-07:002012-06-14T13:52:31.973-07:00cl:
Your post is stronger if you start at, "S...cl:<br />Your post is stronger if you start at, "Scientific evidence...". There is no need to talk about "blathering." Ridicule is when you demean the person to criticize their idea. Your facts are great. The personal attacts detract from the strength of your argument. Otherwise, you risk becoming what you ridicule.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-5762274821543855092012-06-14T13:40:34.265-07:002012-06-14T13:40:34.265-07:00Mike Darus,
"Ridicule is the death of reason...<b>Mike Darus</b>,<br /><br /><i>"Ridicule is the death of reason. We are no longer in the age of Jeopardy where contestants are rewarded for the correct answer. We are in the age of Family Feud where popularity determines what is right. Ridicule only works if you are willing to change your conviction based on what others think of you."</i><br /><br />Wow, big applause over here. So well said. That deserves to be quoted, I hope you don't mind. <br /><br />Allow me to ask: would you consider my last comment to Stephen Carr ridicule, or just brash? I used to pretty much condemn all forms of mockery and ridicule. Then, years of combox argumentation went by, and I found myself embracing both. These days, I'm starting to think a return to the early years might be better.<br /><br />What do you think? How do you define ridicule?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61635641999233601952012-06-14T13:38:53.186-07:002012-06-14T13:38:53.186-07:00cl, thanks but I've got to give credit to that...cl, thanks but I've got to give credit to that for Leo Rosten in The Joys of Yiddish, where I read that definition many many years ago. It's a classic. Yiddish insults are the best ever.PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-8053770928012127652012-06-14T13:36:36.954-07:002012-06-14T13:36:36.954-07:00William said, "Teaching positions in ancient ...William said, "Teaching positions in ancient Western civilization history are so rare, how do you know that the course he took was not better for him than the alternatives (working as a sales rep or bank teller, moonlighting teaching at the community college level)?"<br /><br />Pretty much the basis of my point, wasn't it? I still think Carrier isn't a sincere Myther...it's a career move. Too bad it's not one with a bigger future.PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21194466923466370532012-06-14T13:35:19.672-07:002012-06-14T13:35:19.672-07:00PatrickH,
"Imagine GNUs at seventy! Imagine ...<b>PatrickH</b>,<br /><br /><i>"Imagine GNUs at seventy! Imagine Carrier at seventy! No one will listen to him, not one bit, not even the nursing home attendants. <br /><br />And no one now or ever will take him seriously who is connected to mainstream scholarship in any of the areas in he's made of himself such a phudnik (phudnik = nudnik with a phd. nudnik = pest.)"</i><br /><br />LOL! That's one of the funniest comments I've read in 2012. Maybe even <i>the</i> funniest. Cheers to you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-63579645482877022332012-06-14T13:23:34.368-07:002012-06-14T13:23:34.368-07:00I think Carrier is one of those people who thinks ...I think Carrier is one of those people who thinks he has competence in areas where he doesn't know what he's talking about. He wrote the critique of my paper, and he managed to explain intentionality "naturalistically" by defining it in terms of about 10 other intentional concepts.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58945494546150968552012-06-14T13:23:11.352-07:002012-06-14T13:23:11.352-07:00Steven Carr,
"I see RankSophist has mastered...<b>Steven Carr</b>,<br /><br /><i>"I see RankSophist has mastered the art of Christian abuse."</i><br /><br />It's not that you blathering (fill in the blank), it's that you expose yourself as worthy of ridicule when you make preposterous claims despite clear scientific evidence to the contrary. Scientific evidence testifies the children brought up religious fare better, across a multiplicity of criteria, than the non-religious. Victor just posted <a href="http://www.breakpoint.org/component/content/article/71-features/1490-childs-play-from-dawkins" rel="nofollow">this link</a> last week.<br /><br /><i>"This study sorted its 3,290 participants into levels of religious involvement: the Devoted, the Regulars, the Sporadic, and the Disengaged. Because America’s predominant religious groupings are Christian, the “Devoted” and “Regulars” were predominantly Christian—Protestant and Catholic. Therefore these results can fairly be taken as relating specifically to Christianity. (Results for other religions are hard to determine from the data.)<br /><br />The closer teenagers were to “Devoted” rather than “Disengaged,” the less they engaged in these negative behaviors:<br /><br />Habits: Smoking, drinking, marijuana use, TV watching, pornography use, “action” video game use, R-rated movies;<br /><br />At school: Poor grades, cutting classes, getting suspended or expelled;<br /><br />Attitude: Bad temper, rebellious toward parents;<br /><br />Sex: Early physical involvement, including number of partners and age of first sexual contact.<br /><br />Those more “Devoted” on the scale showed more of these positive outcomes:<br /><br />Emotional well-being: Satisfaction with physical appearance, planning for the future, thinking about the meaning of life, feeling cared for, freedom from depression, not feeling alone and misunderstood, not feeling “invisible,” not often feeling guilty, having a sense of meaning to life, getting along well with siblings;<br /><br />Relationships with adults: Closeness with parents, number of adults connected to, feeling understood by parents, sensing that parents pay attention, feeling they get the “right amount of freedom” from parents;<br /><br />Moral reasoning and honesty: Belief in stable, absolute morality; not pursuing a “get-ahead” mentality; not just pleasure-seeking; less lying to parents and cheating in school;<br /><br />Compassion: Caring about the needs of the poor, caring about the elderly, caring about racial justice;<br /><br />Community: Participation in groups, financial giving, volunteer work (including with people of different races and cultures), helping homeless people, taking leadership in organizations.<br /><br />The findings are overwhelming. On page after page, chart after chart, on every one of the ninety-one variables studied, the closer teens were to the “Devoted” end of the scale, the healthier their lives were. These are the results of Dawkins’ “child abuse.” This is what he complains is so bad for children."</i><br /><br />**************<br /><br />QED.<br /><br />Take your Dawkins-loving anti-scientific screeds elsewhere, you're only going to get exposed as the anti-Christian bigot you are if you bring that crap here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-86774772083019569402012-06-14T13:22:08.486-07:002012-06-14T13:22:08.486-07:00Such vituperativeness. You guys deserve Carrier t...Such vituperativeness. You guys deserve Carrier to match your style :).<br /><br />Teaching positions in ancient Western civilization history are so rare, how do you know that the course he took was not better for him than the alternatives (working as a sales rep or bank teller, moonlighting teaching at the community college level)?Williamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12533263841520213358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-13016730790427856572012-06-14T12:20:49.562-07:002012-06-14T12:20:49.562-07:00Carrier was pretty put out by not getting anywhere...Carrier was pretty put out by not getting anywhere near a tenure-track position, something not exactly easy for anybody these days in history. He decided to throw his lot in with the new atheist crowd and be a big fish in a tiny brackish pond. Mistake, maybe.<br /><br />Because now, given his record of preposterous and abusive behavior, given a pixel/paper trail that would embarrass a fifteen-year old in its vituperation, abuse, incompetence and irrationality, Carrier has ingratiated himself only with the kind of folk who attended the reason rally, who clog up internet sinkholes, and such. But in doing so, he has permanently scotched any possibility of a serious academic career. That's why you find him hawking his wares at skeptic conferences next to Myther cranks and Bigfoot-debunkers or appearing in lying manipulative junk like quasi-reformed fundie Brian Flemming's The God Who Wasn't There. He's probably not even a true Myther. He's just trying to score some sales. <br /><br />But once you hitch your wagon to such a falling meteor-let as the rapidly sinking, marginalized self-isolated New Atheist/Skeptic go-nowhere-fast "movement", you don't get unhitched. He's going to be dragged down into the crank/curmudgeon abyss with the lot of them. Imagine GNUs at seventy! Imagine Carrier at seventy! No one will listen to him, not one bit, not even the nursing home attendants. <br /><br />And no one now or ever will take him seriously who is connected to mainstream scholarship in any of the areas in he's made of himself such a phudnik (phudnik = nudnik with a phd. nudnik = pest.)<br /><br />Carrier made a short term career compromise to get some attention. Mistake. He's slumming with the GNUs,and he's beginning to sound and smell like the intellectual low-rent demographic they've become. But he's not moving out of that echo chamber of a neighbourhood. He's in for the long haul.<br /><br />Couln't happen to an unnicer potential squandering guy.PatrickHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04864910409538457529noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-9197012447025652372012-06-14T10:14:07.225-07:002012-06-14T10:14:07.225-07:00No one here said that Carrier didn't have a fo...No one here said that Carrier didn't have a following - it's that he's a hack and a joke. And considering he just finished making an ass of himself in a public way, the charges stands. (If "slagging off" easily on others is a sign that you've gotten "too close to the bone", then Carrier is giving off all the signs of being full of hot air.)<br /><br />This isn't going to get cured by saying 'Well I read his stuff and personally I find him to be quite great'. He's gotten his ass kicked too many times in too many conversations by too many people, but authorities and amateurs. The fact that he's a name of note in that exciting community summed up as "online angry atheists" reflects poorly on that community, ever bit as much as it does for having (effectively ex-)scientist PZ Myers blubbering about his 'hunters eyes'.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16190254994705239682012-06-14T09:28:39.738-07:002012-06-14T09:28:39.738-07:00Ridicule is the death of reason. We are no longer...Ridicule is the death of reason. We are no longer in the age of Jeopardy where contestants are rewarded for the correct answer. We are in the age of Family Feud where popularity determines what is right. Ridicule only works if you are willing to change your conviction based on what others think of you.Mike Darushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06669617343235073078noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-21120576874610192112012-06-14T07:40:09.052-07:002012-06-14T07:40:09.052-07:00>So what was the problem with him wanting to ra...>So what was the problem with him wanting to raise his children as Christians - problems so insurmountable he tells us he would not have been happy marrying a Jewish woman?<br /><br />So Carr does not see a problem with the potential marriage between an Atheist who believes teaching children religion is a form of child abuse with a Christian parent who believes they have a moral obligation before God to teach them the Gospel?<br /><br />Seriously?<br /><br />The Bible wisely councils us against being unequally yoked. <br /><br />Even a Christian who believes non- believers by negation(i.e. invincibly ignorant) can be saved by extra-ordinary grace still has a moral obligation to raise their children Christian.<br /><br />A religious Jew believes it is the sin of idolatry for any Jew to confess the Trinity or Deity of Christ. They also believe the children of a Jewish mother must by Divine Law be raised in the Jewish Faith because they are Jews.<br /><br />Thus in the case of Jewish & Christian intermarriage unless one or both are nominal in their belief or one or the other consents to convert, it is a bad idea to unequally yoke such people.<br /><br />In Catholicism such marriages are not absolutely forbidden otherwise a bishop could not grant a dispensation for a member of the faithful to marry a non-Catholic.<br /><br />But still it is not a good idea. <br /><br />I don't see why idiots like Carr have a problem with this? It's just common sense?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53164109161514549882012-06-14T07:18:22.975-07:002012-06-14T07:18:22.975-07:00I am all for the ridicule of bad logic, bad argume...I am all for the ridicule of bad logic, bad argument & giving said ridicule alongside rational critique of the former and later.<br /><br />But the Gnu just gives ridicule for it's own sake sans rational critique.<br /><br />(Case in point the general blather of Paps and Carr)<br /><br />What they are conceptionally incapable of understanding is someone could be right ultimately about their stated core truth but still employ bad arguments to get there.<br /><br />Like true Fundies they might cling to bad arguments for Atheism or bad polemics against Christianity(i.e. Jesus Mytherism) at the expense of their Atheism. <br /><br />Or they might take bad arguments for Theism or Christianity or a specific version of it to be universal and ignore stronger arguments.<br /><br />Or they might waste their time on minor issues where they have no common ground with their opponent.<br /><br />If I accept the existence of God in the Classical Sense. Accept the resurrection of Christ. Accept Jesus founded the Catholic Church, Accept the universal testimony of the Fathers on the Real Presence. Then Transubstantiation is a no-brainier.<br /><br />But the idiot Atheist who mocks Transubstantiation because he can't verify it empirically makes about as much sense as the microbiologist who doubt the existence of the Andromeda galaxy because he can't see it under his microscope.<br /><br />If I deny God tomorow my contempt for this brand of Gnu for these reasons remain.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.com