Sure I do. I have the right to call anyone anything I like to subject to the laws of the country I find myself in, particularly when I'm enguaged in a non-libelous, thougtful and logical argument. So do they. Whether my or their statements carry any weight or are worth listening to is another issue entirely.
Yet you complain when people are offended when you insult them.
I do find it interesting that beleifs in the supernatural have become such protected ground that they must be tread ever so lightly lest even the mearest hint of offense be given. We debate sports and politics and education and such with such vigor and energy. People are generally capable of divorcing their own self-image from their positions on those subjects and go home unoffended even after the fiercests of contests. Yet it seems (to me at least) that even the most modest disagreement with another's supernatural views is taken as a personal attack, at least in the US. How did we get this way? Our beleifs dictate so much of who we are and the decisions we make, what could possibily be more important to subject to scrutiny? Amazing.
That's not the point. I didn't say that there was anything wrong with debating. The point was you're insulting people, which is a different thing entirely.
Avoiding a digression into definitions of the term 'disprove' and 'religion' and such for a minute, I will in fact claim that science has in fact disproved the vast majority of testable claims for the supernatural (the remainder are generally too silly to be worth testing). Pick any medium, mystic or palm reader you like. Articulate their claims and/or powers, then test them. It's been done many hundreds of times with the same results. "Oh," but you might say, "it doesn't work like that." Well then, how does it work exactly? What is it they are claiming they can do that is supernatural? Show me any claimed supernatural ability of any supposed value and I bet I can design an experiment that can test for it.
That would be interesting. But can you disprove all accounts of the supernatural, or religion for that matter? I agree that I would suspect most are bogus, but one can't rule out the faint possibility of some cases being genuine. The saying goes, just because it can't be disproven, doesn't mean it exists. But, I'd like to add, that it doesn't mean it doesn't exist either. I don't think its right to put your whole faith into - or even think about - something that probably doesn't even exist, but it works for some people, some people live by it. Don't they have that right?
Because they believe with conviction things which are demonstrably contrary to overwhelming evidence yet are unable or unwilling to defend those beliefs. Because by so believing, they casually dismiss without a moments thought the hard work of people who actually study the problem and devote their lives to finding actual answers through rational investigation. The definition of arrogance is being so sure that you are right that you are unwilling to defend your beliefs or entertain evidence to the contary. Undefended belief in the supernatural is either plain old ignorance or by definition, the epitomy of arrogance.
And, lest you accuse me of a similar fault, let me point out that I defend what I beleive (with evidence) and will gladly and willingly change the positions I hold in the face of appropriate evidence to the contrary.
Your point is fair, but I do think it is just ignorance. For example, my boyfriend, who is religious, didn't believe in evolution when I first met him. But he was definately not arrogant, just ill-informed. I'm sure if I'd opened up with the same agression you exhibit, he wouldn't have continued the conversation. Instead I explained to him what I knew of theory - which was vastly different from what he had been poorly taught about it - and he's now very accepting of the theory. He may not believe in it, but he's accepting of the likelihood of it being true, and talks about it as matter-of-fact rather than "
if it happened...".
I can tell you're much against the soft approach but if you want your evidence to be heeded, maybe you should use a bit less fire.
"I have made no insults that I know of. What I have done is make a rational argument. I have made an observation,
applied an appropriatly descriptive label to a catagory of people and provided a logical and rational argument as to why I think that label applies. To call someone irrational or arrogant is not an insult if it is done as a factual observation with evidence. People may still take offense I imagine, but their offense is unwarrented.
And to equate my rational observation with the unwilling imposition of religon is ridiculous and deserves no further comment."
The bolded area is what I'm concerned about. See, the thing is there isn't evidence to say that these people are all arrogant. Saying so would mean that they all think they're superior in their beliefs, which is not true at all. Many are very open minded about it.
As for the last sentence in that quote, I could compare it by saying that hardly anyone can be forced into religion, unless by words. You are using words - insulting generalizations to accessorize your argument, rather than just biting your tongue and taking the civil approach without being so narrow-minded.
Well, aggressive might be appropriatly descriptive, but narrow-minded is not. I am open to any and all evidence or rational arguments people may wish to make or provide.
Not narrow-minded in that way. Narrow-minded in the way that you can't see that not all people who believe in the supernatural or religion stick by their beliefs through pride alone. Many are simply ignorant to evidence, some already accept the evidence (but wuld still like to be keep to their religious beliefs in peace), at the end of the day, people don't deserve name-calling just because they won't change their views to suit you.
Besides - faith is a whole different world altogether. Faith is not about scientific evidence, it's about believing in something in the absence of evidence. Sounds silly to you? It does to me too! But for some people it's the very foundation of their lives, the way they can make sense of the world - in many cases alongside science - and why should they have to put up with prejudice just because of a lifestyle choice that harms nobody? (obviously excluding some pushy enthusiasts)
(by the way, I have an incidence I'd like you to comment on - about a psychic medium, if you don't mind, can I PM you? A second opinion from the other end of the spectrum would be nice)
Show Posts
But there's nothing wrong with ignorance, and that was my point.