Know your audience. There is literally nothing I can do to make me feel embarrassed in front of you people.

Some people have put their heads into places hide from reality. So be it. "You people" are all the same in that regards, I guess.

We're talking about religious people right?

I'll let your intellectual contribution to this thread speak for itself.

Can't answer a straight question? I'm dumb as *** remember so how can I know.

No, my guess is that most of the people here are not religious.

Indeed.

Still not going to answer the question?

I already have multiple times and in many ways. Your inability to understand the answer isn't really my problem. If you lack the capacity of linguistic nuance, you're going to have to find someone else to explain it.

I do get the point Aaron on people not being willing to open their mind and explore the ideas, and it is something I've encouraged myself to do having read some of this thread, but in genereal people might be more willing to do so if you didn't come across as a patronising arse all the time.

That said, maybe the anti religious people who come into this thread come across as patronising arses, and this is just your response to them.

For the record it was Aaron that came in and crashed my post. I don't think he realized how trollish I get when that happens but I will let him do his thing now.

Indeed. I responded to two statements. Here is the direct link:

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...&postcount=782

The first was in response to a question about "logic":

Very few people discuss "logic" in this manner. Indeed, what is being presented is a form of scientific methodology. But it missed the question, and so I was attempting to redirect.

Here's the second statement:

And I questioned here the distinction between "theory" and "hypothesis." The reason this distinction matters is because a lot of people who wish they were scientists or scientifically minded like to throw this around as if the distinction between the two categories is clearly defined and meaningful. It really isn't. It's just a labeling game used so they don't have to deal with any of the details or other facts of the discussion. I think there are ZERO scientists who walk around discounting one belief or another by saying that this is a theory and that is just a hypothesis. It's basically an unscientific discussion.

Notice that neither of these have *ANY* religious connotations in them. At all. Both could have been raised by an atheist.

I do find amusement in the deep irony that his original statement could be directly turned back on him and the evidence is absolutely clear:

Kelvis, just as d2_e4 did, is so wrapped up in his own beliefs (not just his beliefs, but a also misguided sense of intellectual superiority) that he absolutely refused to apply rational thought to the situation. Here was his response to my two comments:

And yes, after he started down the path, it did become a bit of troll vs troll.

This is the equivalent of online posting road rage. It starts with a sense of entitlement ("my post" was "crashed" -- whatever that actually means in the context of a public forum discussion), and when that perceived entitlement is encroached upon, you respond stupidly.

Religious people don't have the market cornered on believing bad ideas. All people are capable of believing things that have no basis in fact, or logic. But what makes religion so dangerous is that it can be made to fit many interpretations and comes with a perceived absolute authority that can be used to justify all kinds of evil.

Society also has a "rule" that religious beliefs are sacred and shouldn't be criticised. It's much more acceptable to criticise a conspiracy theorist or someone who is anti vaccination.

Of course, nothing here is actually particular to religion.

You actually haven't talked to an anti-vax person directly about their anti-vax beliefs, have you?

There's a whole psychology about people's beliefs and how they hold them. There's nothing specific to religion that doesn't apply to other areas of life.

Also, the idea that society somehow has a rule that religious beliefs shouldn't be criticized is mostly false, at least in the US. I'm really not sure where that idea is coming from. Can you give some examples?

Yes there is, doing things "in the name of God" is pretty much at the core of what I am getting at. Radical Islam is just the latest of a long line of evil done with the supposed moral authority of "God".

Do you think "in the name of God" is really that functionally different from, say, gun rights activists pronouncing "Constitutional Rights" for their beliefs about gun and gun legislation? Or an ethos of "Tolerance and acceptance" for more liberally-minded folks?

Yes I do because the hierarchy in peoples beliefs God is the be all end all. Clever people have been using that as a device since religion was invented.

Explain the functional difference. How would you convince a gun rights activist that the constitution isn't the be all end all of their argument for gun rights. (You're probably also using a poor representation of religious beliefs in your argument. It seems to me you're arguing more against a caricature built from extreme views rather than the actual religious beliefs that the majority of people hold.)

People have been using all the available devices all the time.

No, why? I'm not from the US though, I get the impression this debate is more heated there.

I figured you probably haven't.

It's usually WAY worse to criticize someone's parenting than their religious beliefs. It doesn't need to be anti-vax. It can be with regards to spanking. Or if someone's kid is having a meltdown in public. Try criticizing someone's parenting sometime and let me know if it goes better or worse than criticizing their religion.

It was something that rang true when I read the God delusion, that was a while ago though. My perception is that society would find it more acceptable to enter into a discussion if someone said "I believe in ghosts" than it would if they said "I believe in Jesus". You don't think this is true? I certainly think it's seen as acceptable to be anti gay rights on the basis of your religion, but it wouldn't be seen as acceptable to be anti gay rights on the basis of "just not liking gay people".

Fair point - I was more considering it as a general non belief in vaccination rather than a specific decision in regards to a child. I agree with the above - could have chosen a better example.