Ignorance as Personal Insult
Offline I have a problem:
Sometimes, when I encounter someone who is so hopelessly lost to irrational thought, I have trouble letting it go. I replay conversations in my head to test the hypothesis that NO amount of good science or sound logic can save these people from believing falsehoods (specifically this comes up with evolution and that hated subject astrology).
I've tried everything: explaining that astrology is no different from racism or classism or sexism or any other typological thinking, and we all know how memetically unsuccessful scientific facts are compared to science fiction.
My concern is that these people are out there spreading their ignorance. It would be one thing if they kept it to themselves. I hate to sound so arrogant, but science has strict criteria and high standards for good reasons and misrepresentation of scientific fact should, I think, be considered a punishable public misdemeanor (the punishment would be to attend and pass a relevant class in a reputable university).
My problems with the inadequacy of the US legal code aside, sometimes I can't even sleep thinking about the danger to clear and rational thinking these people could be doing on a daily basis by spreading untruths.
I'm posting this here because maybe there's someone on this forum who knows what to say to me that I can repeat to myself, to calm myself down after these unfortunate encounters with unrelenting ignorance.
I think in a lot of cases argument is wasted. Some people are too far gone, but that doesn't settle the issue for me. There has to be some kind of secret meme weapon when it comes to establishing the difference between real science and quantum mystic junk science besides the ones I've already tried: explaining the scientific method, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, etc... during which I have merely wasted my time, energy, and passion.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
- Login to post comments
Offline "I am not the center of the universe; my ideas aren't the only valid ideas on this planet; I do not know everything, contrary to what I may be tempted to believe."
False dichotomy fallacy and Appeal to moderation fallacy. The implication of his statement was not that there are no "different lenses" to view the world but rather that certain ideas are invalid and false. This problem cannot be sidestepped by virtue of appealing to "another lens" by which to view the problem, because that would be ad hoc.
For example, I often get whined to that the scientific exploration into consciousness and the mind constitutes "scientism" and is exclusionary to religious metaphysical ideas about the same process. To which I reply, firstly, that it is a non sequitur to move from the idea that "scientific research into consciousness excludes religious metaphysical ideas" to "X is practicing scientism" because the latter means something quite different. Mathematics, for example, is not science, but is still perfectly and demonstratably valid, but the point to take away is that we don't consider some "lens" to be valid solely by virtue of it being "different" or "another idea", as that would be ad hoc. And by that same principle, there are plenty of ideas that are bad, stupid, and deserve to be countered. You seem to have moved from the premise "X believes that there are bad ideas that should be countered" and "X's ideas aren't the only valid one's on the planet" to the conclusion "The ideas X are fighting against are in the set of valid ideas".
Yes, there are other valid conceptualizations besides scientific ones, mathematical ones being an example, but by the same token, there are plenty of invalid conceptualizations, and none can be defended by the idea that it simply constitutes a "different worldview", because that is a form of ad hoc.
Under your vague criterion, any refutation of a problem could be sidestepped by the assertion "Well, my ideas are just different from yours but equally valid".
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline I would support a 25 year prison sentence for anyone saying "evolution is only a theory" though.
I think I'll go join HD.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:"I am not the center of the universe; my ideas aren't the only valid ideas on this planet; I do not know everything, contrary to what I may be tempted to believe."
False dichotomy fallacy and Appeal to moderation fallacy. The implication of his statement was not that there are no "different lenses" to view the world but rather that certain ideas are invalid and false. This problem cannot be sidestepped by virtue of appealing to "another lens" by which to view the problem, because that would be ad hoc.
For example, I often get whined to that the scientific exploration into consciousness and the mind constitutes "scientism" and is exclusionary to religious metaphysical ideas about the same process. To which I reply, firstly, that it is a non sequitur to move from the idea that "scientific research into consciousness excludes religious metaphysical ideas" to "X is practicing scientism" because the latter means something quite different. Mathematics, for example, is not science, but is still perfectly and demonstratably valid, but the point to take away is that we don't consider some "lens" to be valid solely by virtue of it being "different" or "another idea", as that would be ad hoc. And by that same principle, there are plenty of ideas that are bad, stupid, and deserve to be countered. You seem to have moved from the premise "X believes that there are bad ideas that should be countered" and "X's ideas aren't the only valid one's on the planet" to the conclusion "The ideas X are fighting against are in the set of valid ideas".
Yes, there are other valid conceptualizations besides scientific ones, mathematical ones being an example, but by the same token, there are plenty of invalid conceptualizations, and none can be defended by the idea that it simply constitutes a "different worldview", because that is a form of ad hoc.
Under your vague criterion, any refutation of a problem could be sidestepped by the assertion "Well, my ideas are just different from yours but equally valid".
Thanks for the back up DG.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
- Login to post comments
Offline /Rant on!
Well i agree thoroughly with Jmm. You sound like a dick, pardon my Danish. I know it was hyperbolic, but still, it sounds very arrogant and condesending.
That said, that is just a response to the TONE of your post, not to the content.
As far as content, you ask one simple question: how do you deal with people you find to be ignorant.
Simple answer: Appeal to emotion. It's not about fact versus lies, it's about mutual kindness. If they are kind to you, but blatantly ignorant, respond with equal kindness. Appeal to their sense of sympathy for a fellow human being. Say for example: "astrology is clearly a mythological construct to me. Can't you see how condesending you are to me, when you say you KNOW that because I'm a Taurus, you KNOW what I'm like? You DON'T, and using what you KNOW I consider pseudo-science to try and convince me makes my both angry, and sad. Please have some respect for my view, which I've reached by viewing the world with skeptical eyes, not with "evil science-dogma"."
If they treat you with antagonism (fire and brimstone kinda thing) respond with equal emotion: "How dare you take YOUR God's judgement and lay it on me as if you somehow KNOW exactly how he/she/it feels, while I don't? Has it occured to you that maybe your God wants people to view the world more like I do? Maybe YOU'LL go to hell for gleefully condemning your fellow human beings with such reckless abandon. I mean do you even listen to yourself? Where in what you just said is the humility that your Jesus allegedly preached?"
It's an emotional issue for these people, and clearly it is for you too. That's what this whole thread is it about, is it not? That you are insulted/annoyed/frustrated/sadened/angered be the behavior of these people. Well use your emotions.
My own experience with people who believe, indeed think they KNOW stuff like astrology, is that it feels like they are being condesending to me. "Poor little Nikolaj, if only you could see the beauty of the TRUTH that is the Bible/The teachings of Rudolf Steiner/of Astrology et.c."
The worst thing I can do is respond with condesention in kind. I KNOW I am right, and because MY belief is based on a strong foundation of rationalism/science/healthy skeptisicm I'm not afraid of having that foundation undermined. I am secure in my worldview, and I know that deep down they are not, so I have the power to be the bigger man. And so I always should be, not just because it helps me maintain my own personal integrety, but also because it's the best way to gain people's respect, and therefore their attention. And once I have their respect and attention my rational, logical argument will be much less likely to fall on deaf ears.
But, trust me, I understand your frustration. And I know that living in the US you have to deal with real fundies all the time, something I cannot even begin to imagine. But I still have to say that you MUST be the bigger man, not just for your own sake, but for the sake of actually making a difference with just a few of these people. You ask a question, not about something rational and scientific, but a question of how to deal with your own emotions (feeling personally insulted) and the emotions of other people (their emotional NEED to believe something silly, and their need to prostelisize...protheli... You know, to preach their beliefs to you).
And my response to your post is simply to forget about the rational argument, there is a time and place for that. Yes yes, the emotional argument has no weight in a rational, scientific dispute, but in all other walks of life the appeal to emotion is the single most important argument we have. It's the main way we interact with our fellow human beings. We are really a kind of biological machine, but our software is emotion: it is how evolution has hardwired us to deal with the world. We don't carry on the species by logically concluding that it is what we need to do to fulfill our "purpose" here, we carry on the species by fucking and falling in love, and everything in between. We live in a world of emotion, and rationality is something we super-impose on top of that. Thank goodness for that; rationality is the strongest foundation to build your life on, but don't throw out your emotion, because you are a human being, and so are the fundies. And unlike you, they have NOT built their foundation on rationality, so they are MUCH more vulnerable to their own, but also to your emotions.
If you project the calm, kindness, and integrity that naturally follows from understanding and accepting reality as it really is, then they will have a much harder time disliking you, and if they can't dislike you, then they can't ignore what you are saying. So respond with kindness whenever possible, and with rightous indignation if they are being particularly agressive and mean to you. It will force them to respect you if you are a strong selfconfident, and kind person, and that's a victory for you in and of itself, but more than that it helps your chances of getting them to listen to you.
And if you respond with the arrogance and condesention that I have to say I read in your OP then not only will you push them further and further away from you, but, forgive me for saying, you'll be no better than them. The arrogance and condesention that they draw from being so sure they are right is EXACTLY what makes ME feel personally insulted by the viewpoints of fundies.
/Rant off
With Respect, Nikolaj
Well I was born an original sinner
I was spawned from original sin
And if I had a dollar bill for all the things I've done
There'd be a mountain of money piled up to my chin
- Login to post comments
Offline jmm wrote:FulltimeDefendent wrote:My concern is that these people are out there spreading their ignorance. It would be one thing if they kept it to themselves. I hate to sound so arrogant,
Right. You strike me as the type of person who loves being arrogant.
Quote:but science has strict criteria and high standards for good reasons and misrepresentation of scientific fact should, I think, be considered a punishable public misdemeanor (the punishment would be to attend and pass a relevant class in a reputable university).That's perhaps the most ridiculously pretentious thing I've ever heard in my life--right up there with "theism should be classified as a psychological illness in the DSM-V." Just listen to yourself man. Any deviation from your personal world view should be criminalized? That's worse than solipsism. At least a solipsist concedes that his sentience is the only in existence. What you've done is combine the audacity of solipsism with the traditional view that other minds actually do exist. It's mental fascism, and I propose that mental fascism should be a punishable public misdemeanor: your punishment would be to...I don't know, attend a public place where other people are present, and learn to live amongst them.
Quote:My problems with the inadequacy of the US legal code aside, sometimes I can't even sleep thinking about the danger to clear and rational thinking these people could be doing on a daily basis by spreading untruths.Don't flatter yourself, dude. The scientific world view is but one of many. It's not like any of us have a monopoly on the truth--and that includes you.
Quote:I'm posting this here because maybe there's someone on this forum who knows what to say to me that I can repeat to myself, to calm myself down after these unfortunate encounters with unrelenting ignorance.I actually have a very helpful exercise for you to try out:
Stand in front of a mirror and say this phrase:
"I am not the center of the universe; my ideas aren't the only valid ideas on this planet; I do not know everything, contrary to what I may be tempted to believe."
Each time you finish the phrase, pour a glass of ice water over your head; repeat as many times as necessary.
Quote:I think in a lot of cases argument is wasted. Some people are too far gone, but that doesn't settle the issue for me. There has to be some kind of secret meme weapon when it comes to establishing the difference between real science and quantum mystic junk science besides the ones I've already tried: explaining the scientific method, the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, etc... during which I have merely wasted my time, energy, and passion.You're in for a long and fruitless life if you think you're going to somehow argue your way into convincing everyone to adopt your world view. I think most people understand the difference between "real science" and "quantum mystic junk science"--it's just that not everyone swallows the scientific method whole as the only lens through which to view reality quite as easily as you do.
You are right about one thing, though: you are indeed wasting your time and energy.
Ignoring emotional response.
What a cop-out. My response was no more emotional than yours.
- Login to post comments
Offline One can wallow in the "grimness" of the overwhelming abundance off irrational belief. Or we can continue to offer believers an option to ancient myth and superstition. It has worked. There are many stories of people who have come to atheist sites, not just this one, but many, who came to these sites with the intent of "saving us" only to find out that they could not hold on to their position.
While it is true there will always be people who will never crack when faced with facts, it is also true that others when faced with facts can change. Our focus should not be on a utopia in thinking we can get to everyone and change everyone, we cant.
But we can plant the seeds and those seeds will grow, not in everyone, but will grow in society in general. Younger people especially, seem to be rejecting the beliefs of their parents.
Any long timer on this site, especially Sapient and I, have been in the online community since 01 even before this site. We have seen atheist websites and the word "atheist" go from obscurity in society to bursting into the mainstream. Infidel Guy was on "Wife Swap" and America got an entire hour of atheism in prime time network TV. This site with it's "Blasphemy Challenge" got a spot on ABC's Nightline a national nightly news program.
Not to mention the slew of best selling books by authors such as Sam Haris, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, to name a few. Bill Maher is set to release a big screen movie in October "Religulious" critical of religion.
So we as atheists can focus on the people we cant affect, or focus on the positive we have done. If a utopia is what you seek, you are not going to get anywhere. If you want to put your voice out there, that is something we all can do.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
- Login to post comments
Offline There are too many different types of people to offer a single solution for dealing with them.
Example: There's the under-educated or mis-educated, who will always beleive what they believe simply because they are sure they were properly educated. This is the most common category, I think -- the kind that believe John Edwards (emotional leech and professional shyster, not the politician) really can speak with the dead, even though he's just fairly good at cold-reading.
Then there're those that suffer from one of the various mental disorders. My oldest brother suffers from narcissistic personality disorder. He believes he is right, and gets angry when confronted about it. He's arrogant in his ignorance. We once had (in 1990) an argument concerning the transmutation of lead into gold. Guess which side he was on? These people refuse to respond to actual proof, and generally keep repeating the same few "facts" over and over. Their proof is often, "I read it in a magazine once."
I learned from growing up with an NPD. First, I learned that I too am narcissistic. So, I try to watch myself. I've found I get most angry under two conditions: first, when I might be wrong, and someone is pointing out that I might be wrong; and when someone is refusing to admit that they might be wrong, under any circumstances.
Second, I learned that sometimes you just have to take a deep breath, realize people are going to be willfully ignorant, and move on. Yes, their willfull ignorance can fall anywhere on the scale from annoying to intellectually dangerous. Take a look at the number of holocaust deniers, or ID-as-biology supporters, or US citizens who believe Iraq was responsible for 9/11. Those folks are dangerous, in that the first group denies attrocities can occur; the second inhibits medical research; and the third led us into a war with a stable, progressive Middle East country, reducing it to rubble and killing almost a hundred thousand innocent people.
I think willfull ignorance thrives because we live in a country where casual ignroance is the norm. Our government works hard at disinformation. Or corporations work even harder at disinformation. It's easier to remain ignorant than it is to sort out what's truth, and what's not. So it is that we allow causual ignorance to thrive. People latch on to things around which there is no "disinformation," like astrology, medical quackery, fringe religions, and so on.
Anyway, that's my lecture on the subject. Sorry. That's my narcissism peeking out.
The only way to deal with it is to go all buddhist on it. Accept that it will be, and that you are powerless to change it, and direct your energy where it will be effective. If we can help stamp out casual ignorance, the willfull ignorance will follow.
At least, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline the kind that believe John Edwards (emotional leech and professional shyster, not the politician) really can speak with the dead, even though he's just fairly good at cold-reading.
Simple solution to the confusion: I'm pretty sure it's John Edward, sans "s".
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
- Login to post comments
Offline Quote:the kind that believe John Edwards (emotional leech and professional shyster, not the politician) really can speak with the dead, even though he's just fairly good at cold-reading.Simple solution to the confusion: I'm pretty sure it's John Edward, sans "s".
D'oh!
My mistake. It does appear it is "Edward," and not "Edwards."
Thanks for the correction.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
- Login to post comments
Offline Hambydammit wrote:Quote:the kind that believe John Edwards (emotional leech and professional shyster, not the politician) really can speak with the dead, even though he's just fairly good at cold-reading.Simple solution to the confusion: I'm pretty sure it's John Edward, sans "s".
D'oh!
My mistake. It does appear it is "Edward," and not "Edwards."
Thanks for the correction.
You have been found guilty and sentenced to enroll PoliSci 203: "Contemporary American Politics and Popular Culture - Is There a Difference?" The final's in August.
--
maybe if this sig is witty, someone will love me.
- Login to post comments
Offline nigelTheBold wrote:Hambydammit wrote:Quote:the kind that believe John Edwards (emotional leech and professional shyster, not the politician) really can speak with the dead, even though he's just fairly good at cold-reading.Simple solution to the confusion: I'm pretty sure it's John Edward, sans "s".
D'oh!
My mistake. It does appear it is "Edward," and not "Edwards."
Thanks for the correction.
You have been found guilty and sentenced to enroll PoliSci 203: "Contemporary American Politics and Popular Culture - Is There a Difference?" The final's in August.
owned
- Login to post comments
I couldn't agree with you more. Not only the subject but the content of the post. I often run up against people whose ignorance I can't describe as being any way other than personally insulting.
To make things worse for me personally, I suffer from something I think of as Dubya syndrome. What do I mean by that? I once saw this report about George W Bush. It explained that he comes across as a much dumber person than he really is kind of due to a lack of public speaking skills. Ineloquent. ie, if put on the spot and expected to respond straight away his mind goes in to a kind of state of shock. He knows the right answers, thinks clearly, is very intelligent and tuned in and in any other situation he'd give them straight away but when put in place tends to seize up.
So for me, when confronted with these people and their idiocy, I get dumbfounded by it and it alone. I lose the ability to respond due to it. If I was to put things in to words at the time it would be "wh, ho, hu, bu" while I'm trying to comprehend how they could possibly think the way they do.
I think discovering the secret meme weapon is partially what all sites such as this one are about. We're all trying our different tact. There's no one secret weapon. I can't recall the number of times I've had a D&M with a friend and given them advice, only to have another person give them the exact same advice only slightly differently worded and the other person got all the credit. It's a similar thing, every single person just needs things explained in the right way. You can put across the same message as 15 other people, one one persons will sink through. The RRS has its tactic and also encourages other sites and groups to use their own for that specific reason.
Oh, and I'm rather drunk right now (1am here) so read between the lines and hopefully you'll get what I am in my drunken ineloquent way trying to say.
Organised religion is the ultimate form of blasphemy.
Censored and blacked out for internet access in ANZ!
AU: http://nocleanfeed.com/ | NZ: http://nzblackout.org/
I would have a huge objection to having thoughts, even ignorant thoughts, being crimes or misdemeanors. No free society should ever have thought police or legislate what "proper" ideas are.
It is frustrating to explain many things to theistic people. I believe the root cause of this is their entire paradigm revolves around the universe being a great drama. God is the director, humanity is the actors, and everything else is just props. You either have to explain things in terms of their drama or you have to get them to consider seeing things from your paradigm.
When dealing with such ignorant people, just remember that they were indoctrinated as children and it's not entirely their fault. You can lead them to the proverbial water, but you can't force them to drink it.
Remember how you figured out there is no Santa? Well, their god is just like Santa. They just haven’t figured out he’s not real yet.
Well...
Racism, classism and sexism are genetic traits in a roundabout sort of way. Racism is simply a social manifestation of our instinct to group with kin. Classism is a result of the unavoidable and intrinsic intraspecies competition that accompanies any social animal. Sexism is a result of the competition for mates and the innate mating strategies of humans, which often disagree sharply with the social and religious thought of the day.
Astrology might be the result of our innate and unavoidable tendency to look for patterns. False positives are just as damaging as false negatives, when you think about it.
My main point is that though each of these beliefs is irrational in context, they all come from our genes. It might make it easier for you to deal with people who fall prey to some or all of these beliefs if you understand that they're doing exactly what they're programmed to do.
In this case, they're also doing what they're programmed to do. Game theorists had a real problem dealing with the apparent divide between humans and other social animals. Humans, unlike other animals, do things that seem to defy the principles of selfish groupism. The explanation for this was the instinct to conform. Conformity is the double edged sword that lets us send spaceships to saturn and read the daily horoscope before going to work.
Oh... and I've had to attend mandatory classes for public health in order to operate a restaurant. I can assure you that nobody ever learns anything at a mandatory class.
Well, if you're feeling cynical, you could keep saying to yourself that this generation is really no more ignorant than any other. In any generation, just about everyone is spending all their time just trying to get from one day to the next. For most people, that's all they get. It's not because there's something wrong with people. They're behaving exactly the way their genes programmed them, and LOOK ---> there are six billion of us. We're doing just fine as a species.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Right. You strike me as the type of person who loves being arrogant.
That's perhaps the most ridiculously pretentious thing I've ever heard in my life--right up there with "theism should be classified as a psychological illness in the DSM-V." Just listen to yourself man. Any deviation from your personal world view should be criminalized? That's worse than solipsism. At least a solipsist concedes that his sentience is the only in existence. What you've done is combine the audacity of solipsism with the traditional view that other minds actually do exist. It's mental fascism, and I propose that mental fascism should be a punishable public misdemeanor: your punishment would be to...I don't know, attend a public place where other people are present, and learn to live amongst them.
Don't flatter yourself, dude. The scientific world view is but one of many. It's not like any of us have a monopoly on the truth--and that includes you.
I actually have a very helpful exercise for you to try out:
Stand in front of a mirror and say this phrase:
"I am not the center of the universe; my ideas aren't the only valid ideas on this planet; I do not know everything, contrary to what I may be tempted to believe."
Each time you finish the phrase, pour a glass of ice water over your head; repeat as many times as necessary.
You're in for a long and fruitless life if you think you're going to somehow argue your way into convincing everyone to adopt your world view. I think most people understand the difference between "real science" and "quantum mystic junk science"--it's just that not everyone swallows the scientific method whole as the only lens through which to view reality quite as easily as you do.
You are right about one thing, though: you are indeed wasting your time and energy.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, we have a perfect example of two types of answer to the question. The answer based on science, and the answer based on emotion.
Anyone want to get some information theorists down here to see which answer contained more real information?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Now that's Bullshit Seriously, if someone makes a mistake they should have to take classes on it?
Honestly, science is so complex pretty much everyone will be in the classroom.
I'm working on the assumption that he was making a hyperbolic statement.... mainly because yeah... it's pretty ridiculous.
Susac was asking about debates between creationists and evolutionists in another thread, and I made the point that Americans, on average, are so woefully undereducated in any science that it would take hours just to prepare them to watch a real debate about real science.
Sad, but true.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'd actually agree somewhat - though not for an honest mistake but for someone going around seriously misrepresenting science mandatory classes would be a good idea. I would support a 25 year prison sentence for anyone saying "evolution is only a theory" though.
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
~sigh~
I'm going to live in the lake.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
If a person is thick, and too thick to know that they're thick, then nature has inured them to a degree against the potential harm their condition might inflict on them. There's absolutely no point in the world in employing logical argument to refute their stated beliefs, or sending them to the classroom, or indeed a sledgehammer.
My own reaction is to laugh hilariously at the more stupid things they say. And the more seriously they try to sell me their claptrap I am afraid the more hilarious I find it. Unless of course they are psychopaths. Then I listen attentively, stifle my giggles, walk away and then laugh.
I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy
Sorry about the hyperbolic statement. I didn't mean simple mistakes in conversation, I meant deliberate attempts at misrepresentation/deception- i.e. the entire industry out there devoted to undermining good science by spreading the ID meme- and I was speaking in anger. However, as someone who has worked as an educator, I have seen the damage that this kind of propaganda has done on individual basis.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
Ignoring emotional response.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”
I did not literally mean that.
[quote[
It is frustrating to explain many things to theistic people. I believe the root cause of this is their entire paradigm revolves around the universe being a great drama. God is the director, humanity is the actors, and everything else is just props. You either have to explain things in terms of their drama or you have to get them to consider seeing things from your paradigm.
When dealing with such ignorant people, just remember that they were indoctrinated as children and it's not entirely their fault. You can lead them to the proverbial water, but you can't force them to drink it.
Like I said, it's my concern that, indoctrinated as they were, they are spreading falsehoods and undermining the work of good, decent scientists by contributing to America's already notable anti-intellectualism.
“It is true that in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. It is equally true that in the land of the blind, the two-eyed man is an enemy of the state, the people, and domestic tranquility… and necessarily so. Someone has to rearrange the furniture.”