[Thaeris]

Strange, commenting on how debate is pointless, and then debating on it...

That might apply to a "stagnant person," but a learning individual can and certainly does benenefit and "evolve" from intelligable debate. When hard facts or logic is presented and tested by the individual, there will be some revelation achieved by analysis - the order of magnitude of which is dependant on what the individual does with that information.

...I'd like to think if nothing else this thread demonstrated certain fallacies of human nature which are really just linked to the social nature of man, as well as the fact that "religious people" are not the sole origin of violence or malevolence in the modern world (or... something like that...). Was I perhaps a little annoyed at some of what was said? Maybe. But, we succeeded in discussing the issue without incident and hopefully learned something from it.

[Mongoose]

I don't know anything about the cognitive processes at work in debates, but what I will agree with Battuta on is that these ridiculous arguments that tend to break out in here significantly detract from my enjoyment of this site as a whole.  It's something that's hardly exclusive to here, though, as I came back to another forum I frequent after a hiatus only to almost immediately get involved in a similar discussion.  (Hoo boy, I'd pay to see the earth-shaking clash of political standpoints that would occur if a select few of you guys ventured there. )  It's easy to say "Just don't read GenDisc," but that ignores the fact that there are also plenty of lighthearted, generally-amusing threads posted in here that have little to no danger of turning into flame wars.  I don't want to cut myself off from the fun stuff just to avoid the facepalm stuff.

I don't remember if it worked out very well at all, but maybe we could try resurrecting the Rants folder concept for this sort of thing.

[General Battuta]

Strange, commenting on how debate is pointless, and then debating on it...

That might apply to a "stagnant person," but a learning individual can and certainly does benenefit and "evolve" from intelligable debate. When hard facts or logic is presented and tested by the individual, there will be some revelation achieved by analysis - the order of magnitude of which is dependant on what the individual does with that information

Sorry, but the data doesn't support your claim to exceptionalism.

Your analysis of hard facts and logic is a superficial and faulty system hastily patched over a much deeper cognitive system you're not aware of and can't control.

And I'm fully aware of the irony of the situation, thanks.

Anyway, I'm with Mongoose.

[Kosh]

Sorry, but the data doesn't support your claim to exceptionalism.

We have an entire movement based on the exceptionalism which you claim doesn't exist.

Your analysis of hard facts and logic is a superficial and faulty system hastily patched over a much deeper cognitive system you're not aware of and can't control.

People can override it, and many have done so. The problem is people aren't trained to think in a rational manner, which makes it more difficult than it needs to be.

[General Battuta]

Data to support your claim?

Remember that I'm talking from the standpoint of a behavioral scientist here, and we're mostly of the opinion that people don't know anything about how they think.

Folk psychology isn't going to fly here.

[Kosh]

Data to support your claim?

The entire skeptical movement is my evidence. You say that people can't change or evolve their viewpoints based on evidence and intelligent debate, but that is exactly what skepticism is about. Try it sometime.

[General Battuta]

So you're suggesting that as a scientist I'm not a skeptic?

What I'm telling you is that even the most devoted skeptic suffers heuristic biases which badly compromise purely rational thought.

The links you provided are movements I'm very much in favor of, but they do not change the fact that human cognition is a funny beast.

Most of your heuristics are inaccessible to conscious thought and thus cannot be altered no matter how hard you try.

You say that people can't change or evolve their viewpoints based on evidence and intelligent debate

No, I didn't say that. What I said was that it's an unreliable process that goes wrong as often as not.

Of course many people aren't aware of their own failings in this respect, which is why we have to insist on ignoring people's bull**** self-perceptions and actually gathering data on how they act.

So, any data?

[General Battuta]

And in fact this debate is a great case in point.

It's more about ego posturing and not liking what the other person says than any desire to communicate new information or evaluate on fair grounds.

Skepticism and rationality are the way to go, but unfortunately humans are (with our current neural setup) pretty poor amateurs at those tasks.

[Kosh]

So you're suggesting that as a scientist I'm not a skeptic?

Based on your posting I would have to say not really. Being a scientist doesn't automatically make you a skeptic, although there certainly is a greater tendency towards that.

What I'm telling you is that even the most devoted skeptic suffers heuristic biases which badly compromise purely rational thought.

The links you provided are movements I'm very much in favor of, but they do not change the fact that human cognition is a funny beast.

Most of your heuristics are inaccessible to conscious thought and thus cannot be altered no matter how hard you try.

None of them claim to be perfect, but they try and are generally much more successful than others. Part of the problem is very few were ever raised to be one, often times people "woke up" when they were in their 20's, often well away from our education system. Personally I used to be one of those people who firmly believed in ESP, space aliens coming here, and quite a few ideas, etc, until I realized there was no evidence to support any of it.

No, I didn't say that. What I said was that it's an unreliable process that goes wrong as often as not.

"As a cognitive scientist, I've learned that humans don't form opinions by rational discourse; we settle on ideas that 'feel right' to us for subconscious reasons, then selectively recruit evidence to confirm our own biases." That statement sounds pretty concrete to me.

I've always had the impression, both from the scientists I know in person (mostly from the physics department at my university) and scientists I know by reputation that debate was an important part of academic life and the scientific method in general. Is that not the case in your field?

[General Battuta]

Debate is certainly an important part of scientific life.

That doesn't mean human beings are any good at it, just that we do the best we can.

Honestly, you're not making much sense:

Based on your posting I would have to say not really.

My position is based on scientific evidence gathered through rigorous methodology. I haven't seen any evidence of similar data from you?

[TESLA]

no idea.  maybe because it's impossible to find a quote in 'atheism' that says its ok to kill people for certain things, mostly because there isn't an 'atheism.'

There is such a thing as "militant atheism," though.  The statements of individuals like Richard Dawkins could very easily be spun into a radicalized creed of beliefs, just as Christianity was spun into such by the individuals in the original post.  In this thread.  The bottom line here is, as multiple people have pointed out, no form of grouping is immune.

When's the last time Dawkins suggested killing other people was a good way to solve conflict?

Of course Dawkins never suggested killing other people. Neither did Jesus. Yet people how used his words to carry out horrible things in his name. The potential is there for every human being to carry out evil and commit crimes no matter what the belief or cause is. Why? Because were human. Atheism is not immune to this. Atheism does not have a special splace above religion making it exempt from the problems of humankind.

[Black Wolf]

If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.

[iamzack]

Commanded it, even. Genocide to the last infant and tree. (Except the women, they count as spoils of war.)

[Kosh]

My position is based on scientific evidence gathered through rigorous methodology. I haven't seen any evidence of similar data from you?

I've only ever seen you post any sort of evidence one time, so I am a little skeptical of that assessment.

This is not evidence:

Troll.

(Unless you're actually not aware of the reasons why Africa is in such a state of chaos...and who's responsible.)

Debate is certainly an important part of scientific life.

When you said it was pointless, and referring to your experiences in academia, I got the impression you viewed all debate as being useless, including scientific. Perhaps I was mistaken, but to be fair your statement was very broad reaching.

If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.

Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".

[General Battuta]

Check out Bar-Hillel 1980, most stuff by Kahneman and Tversky, or Nisbett et al. 1976 for some starters. And that's what I pulled up at random - there's a massive body of work.

[Mongoose]

If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.

Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".

Part of canon, yes, but not without context.  The ignoring of said context is blatantly irresponsible.

[iamzack]

If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.

Part of the problem with people trying to down play the old testament is that the ot is still church canon, and still part of "the word".

Part of canon, yes, but not without context.  The ignoring of said context is blatantly irresponsible.

You mean the context that it's a collection of myths and legends of the region?

[Mongoose]

No (or, I suppose, more generally), the context of when specific segments were written, and for what purpose.  Even limiting oneself to the Old Testament, the Bible's books represent a variety of different literary types, composed at different points in the Jewish people's history.  For instance, Genesis 1 is an allegorical myth, with the repeated structure of each day used to reinforce the central theological concept.  Leviticus and Deuteronomy largely consists of legal and religious statutes.  Psalms is a grouping of spiritual songs.  Kings is a largely  historical account.  Extending into the New Testament, the Gospels represent a more direct narrative structure, while Paul's letters address various theological and evangelical issues in the communities they were aimed at.  And all of these were originally generated, and then eventually written down, over a period of several hundred to a few thousand years.  To paint every single book of the Bible with the same brush is a massive oversimplification, and doing something like quote-mining from a single book without context demonstrates ignorance of the historical purpose of that portion.  It's the same sentiment that leads ignorant people to look at a few lines from the Koran and proclaim, "All Muslims are terrorists!"

[NGTM-1R]

If you accept the doctrine of the unity of the trinity, then Jesus (aka God) suggested killing people all throughout the old testament.

If you accept the doctrine of the Trinity and believe that, then you don't accept the doctrine of the Trinity. God isn't actually the same person as Jesus. If that doesn't make sense to you, that's okay. Think of them as being manifestations of a singular concept or idea. (Or just accept you don't understand. Either way.) The full Trinitarian doctrine is complex and ugly and has no useful parallel in reality with which to explain it, so you more or less need a theology degree to claim true understanding of what you're saying.

However as it has been given to me to understand from someone with such a degree, the doctrine of the Trinity was originally developed to A: prevent Christianity from taking on a polytheistic nature where you prayed to God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit seperately, and B: by so doing ensure all three of them were prayed to rather just Jesus, since he was the only one who was ever physical and thus much easier to relate to.

Note it hasn't been entirely successful since Christians usually mention Jesus a lot more than God. And named their religion after him.


(Judaism's God shortchanged its prophets by giving them nothing to assist their work save a very vague warning that Bad Things Will Happen. Islam incorporates the same people and Jesus but seems to prefer what could very loosely be described as a system of avatarship to them and The Prophet in that they have limited divine inspiration and power with which to accomplish their work, but it's only on loan and they're not divine themselves.)

[Turambar]

The problem is when people quote-mine their own religion, and end up with a cross between the loving god that had his kid killed in order to guilt us into behaving and the pissed off god that murdered entire cities for "bad behavior" and lead the hebrews on a rampaging genocide into the holy land.