Victor Stenger

[tim]

I don't have any problem with anyone believing whatever they like. I don't think religious people live better lives than non-religious people - having been religious myself, and speaking from my own perspective only I would say a lot of religious people pay lip-service to their beliefs, others are trapped by them. As for being happier, sometimes ignorance is bliss I agree. If people have particular beliefs that's fine, when they publicise these beliefs then it seems to me certain that they will encounter others who hold opposing views and challenge them. If this belief is not properly researched it is likely to fall before a better-informed opponent. There are a few ways to deal with this - accept that beliefs can change and learn, demonise the opponent so that they are not heard, don't talk to anyone who doesn't share your own views. I see all the tactics in use all the time by religious people between themselves and from non-believers. It's a funny old world.

I don't think religious people live better lives than non-religious people -

Damn, I knew you'd pick up on that. I don't either but I didn't mean it like that. By and large, according to some of the worlds best psychiatrists, people with
belief in "God" are happier and more secure than atheists. And one would expect that because who prefers annihilation rather than being re-united with your long lost loved ones ?

 

[Iyace]

When Steve said, "what a pathetic lot some of you are", "lot" is used as a noun and refers to "a collection or group of people". The modifier which indicates amount, in this case, is "some" which means "at least a small amount of".

Hope that helps.

Linda

Except that it was precisely one person who ' rejoiced ' at the death.

 

[Iyace]

In fact, I'll provide you the responses of various members immediately preceding Steve's comment:

Sad loss, but this made me face palm:

Hurray!

When I read obituaries of vocal atheists like Stenger, I wonder how they got that way? Their motivations are far more interesting than their conclusions, but they always seem to be glossed into hagiography. It would be great to know what life event made them want to dedicate every spare hour to a polemical approach to science.

I don't think we should be celebrating Stenger's death. Seems a bad road to go down...

How charming, rejoicing in the death of another

I hope Victor has had a pleasant entry into the next world and is eating lots of humble pie

No one in there said anything negative against Sterger's death except Ghost. I'm glad Linda's supporting me in this by demonstrating how the usage of ' some lot ' implies there were multiple people rejoicing, whereas there was only one.

 

[Obiwan]

I don't think religious people live better lives than non-religious people -

Damn, I knew you'd pick up on that. I don't either but I didn't mean it like that. By and large, according to some of the worlds best psychiatrists, people with
belief in "God" are happier and more secure than atheists. And one would expect that because who prefers annihilation rather than being re-united with your long lost loved ones ?

Lol I know what you mean :)

I can accept that having some form of belief leads to a more contented existence. My only point is that belief without understanding why one believes it, or which is based on a flimsy premise won't last long when challenged.

 

[mybell]

Have any read this?

Few of us, even the most devout believers, are willing to leave everything behind to serve the poor. Consequently, Mother Teresa’s work can seem far removed from our daily lives. Yet in its relentless and even obsessive questioning, her life intersects with that of the modern atheist and agnostic. “If I ever become a saint,” she wrote, “I will surely be one of ‘darkness.’ ”

 

[Iyace]

Lemaitre proposed the big bang because he was an astronomer and a physics professor, not because he was a priest. Muslim mathematicians layed the base for algebra, not imams. And the Christian engineers who worked on the Apollo program did not use theology to make their calculations.

And 9/11 didn't happen because muslims were told to do so in their religious texts. 9/11 happened because of a radical political group was angry. Just like eugenics didn't happen because scientific findings told us to do so. That didn't stop eugenicists from using ' scientific findings ' to support their actions. See how the two are extremely similar?

Science is a method, so it does not judge how people use its' findings. It does not compel people to do bad things.
Religion, on the other hand, is a motivator, it can be the reason people do wrong.

That still doesn't stop people from abusing scientific findings to support some deplorable shit.

No, because it is not science that leads to eugenics, it is the interpretation of its findings by some people that leads to eugenics.
Science does not kill people, motivated people kill people. Sadly one of this motivations is religion. There are many others, but science is not one of them.

And it's not the Quran that lead to 9/11. It was the interpretation of some passages that lead people to do that. Never have I once read a passage in the Quran that called on Muslims to fly planes into buildings.

Do you really think these kinds of remarks are helpful in any way?

Oh, absolutely. Here's why:

I don't believe motivations and such should be questioned only in regard to proponents. Skeptics/atheists have their own motivations as well. Your cognitive biases and evidence of such should definitely be identified and open to debate, PER the usual skeptical tactics. Why shouldn't I be questioning your obvious bias? Why are you so special that your own mental processes are immune from criticism? When you say some stupid shit like religion causes people to crash planes into buildings, someone should be calling you out on your own intellectual deficiencies. It's acceptable to every other demographic, according to most worldviews. Why would skeptics be immune to it?

Maybe the fact that you feel you're immune to it demonstrates a deeper level of cognitive bias. That should also come into play when engaging with your arguments.

 

[ghost]

Well I have a question. Would people even be attracted to the violent elements of religion, cults or violent groups, in the absence of stressors? In other words, maybe religion is not the culprit, maybe it's stress. We see it in America and in Western countries where people get cozy and comfortable with their lives and then they stop being interested in violence. On the other hand, people who are highly stressed might gravitate towards violence, with or without religion. I also see lots of religious people who are not violent.

My point is that: maybe violence is a symptom of stress, not religion.

 

[fls]

In fact, I'll provide you the responses of various members immediately preceding Steve's comment:

No one in there said anything negative against Sterger's death except Ghost. I'm glad Linda's supporting me in this by demonstrating how the usage of ' some lot ' implies there were multiple people rejoicing, whereas there was only one.

"Some" implies one or more than one were rejoicing. "A lot" would imply multiple people, but we've already established that that was a misreading. There were multiple instances of negative comments about Stenger. But I was pleased to see several people speak out against overt rejoicing.

I suspect Steve poisoned the well a bit with respect to whether or not we would have seen "some" rejoicing (assuming "one" isn't "some" (don't know whether this is the case)).

Linda

 

[Obiwan]

Well I have a question. Would people even be attracted to the violent elements of religion, cults or violent groups, in the absence of stressors? In other words, maybe religion is not the culprit, maybe it's stress. We see it in America and in Western countries where people get cozy and comfortable with their lives and then they stop being interested in violence. On the other hand, people who are highly stressed might gravitate towards violence, with or without religion. I also see lots of religious people who are not violent.


My point is that: maybe violence is a symptom of stress, not religion.

I think there is something in this line of argument.

Having said that many of the main religions endorse (or at least have endorsed) the use of violence to impose ‘Gods’ will, often under the pretext of it being better for the victims in the long-run. The Bible is certainly full of large-scale slaughter on behalf of ‘God’.

I can’t speak for the Koran or other ‘holy’ books because I have never had much interest in them.

Of course the Bible and Koran etc are not religions as such, but are used to give the practitioners of religion authority for their beliefs and actions.

People who have nothing or very little, have very little to lose. I think you're also right about this. Religions often appeal to the poor and downtrodden and empower them, since their adherents are backed by ‘God’. That’s quite a powerful message if you’re poor, persecuted or isolated in some other way.

Religious texts can often be interpreted in different ways and it’s no surprise that religious leaders interpret them to endorse their own or their organisations’ agendas.

 

[tim]

Steve poisoned the well a bit with respect to whether or not we would have seen "some" rejoicing (assuming "one" isn't "some" (don't know whether this is the case)).

The most toxic poison in the well (this forum) is YOU Madam.

 

[Iyace]

"Some" implies one or more than one were rejoicing. "A lot" would imply multiple people, but we've already established that that was a misreading. There were multiple instances of negative comments about Stenger. But I was pleased to see several people speak out against overt rejoicing.

I suspect Steve poisoned the well a bit with respect to whether or not we would have seen "some" rejoicing (assuming "one" isn't "some" (don't know whether this is the case)).

Linda

It's okay. Steve was wrong. It's really not hard to admit it.

 

[fls]

It's okay. Steve was wrong. It's really not hard to admit it.

Interesting response, considering that Steve was at least on the right track. But I'm glad to see not only less negativity than expected, but people speaking out against it.

I bet Steve is happy to be off about the degree of rejoicing under these circumstances.

Linda

 

[steve001]

"Some" implies one or more than one were rejoicing. "A lot" would imply multiple people, but we've already established that that was a misreading. There were multiple instances of negative comments about Stenger. But I was pleased to see several people speak out against overt rejoicing.

I suspect Steve poisoned the well a bit with respect to whether or not we would have seen "some" rejoicing (assuming "one" isn't "some" (don't know whether this is the case)).

Linda

I don't think I poisoned the well. My remark was directed at a few certain members who have shown consistent contempt towards skeptics here and to skepticism at large.
Knowing their history I can't help but feel there's a bit of happiness that the ranks of the skeptical have been reduced by one. With the exception of ghost the others expressed some contempt covertly, that's why I said subdued rejoicing, perhaps good riddance is more accurate for how they feel.
My use of lot was a figure of speech. I didn't think such a small word would be a issue, but I should have expected it from that one member.

 

[fls]

I don't think I poisoned the well.

I didn't mean this negatively. I suspect that you "poisoned the well" in the sense that people who may have been inclined to rejoice, will be unable to do so now without proving you right. Especially one of the most negative members (Iyace). Good move. :)

Linda

 

[ghost]

Of course the Bible and Koran etc are not religions as such, but are used to give the practitioners of religion authority for their beliefs and actions.

People who have nothing or very little, have very little to lose. I think you're also right about this. Religions often appeal to the poor and downtrodden and empower them, since their adherents are backed by ‘God’. That’s quite a powerful message if you’re poor, persecuted or isolated in some other way.
.

Why does it always have to the the poor, persecuted and downtrodden, (and stupid), who like religion? Did you ever think that some people in middle class America with a good job, a mortgage, a happy relationship and a good work ethic might choose to live a spiritual life, a religion life? I find religion to be pleasurable and satisfying; does that make me persecuted, poor or isolated? Does it make me dumb by the standards of atheists? I work at a high tech company and many of the engineers and technicians there also believe in God.

So let me adjust your bias. Normal successful Americans can be among the faithful because they choose to be, because it makes them happy.

 

[Iyace]

I don't think I poisoned the well. My remark was directed at a few certain members who have shown consistent contempt towards skeptics here and to skepticism at large.
Knowing their history I can't help but feel there's a bit of happiness that the ranks of the skeptical have been reduced by one. With the exception of ghost the others expressed some contempt covertly, that's why I said subdued rejoicing, perhaps good riddance is more accurate for how they feel.
My use of lot was a figure of speech. I didn't think such a small word would be a issue, but I should have expected it from that one member.

Which would make sense, if that's what you had actually said. There is now a LARGE disparity between what you said and what you're not saying.

Some how it turned from " You lot are pathetic for rejoicing at someone's death" to " Ghost, you're pathetic for rejoicing at someone's death. The rest of you should also feel pathetic for disagreeing with his assertions. " You understand that these are very different things to say, correct? Especially on a forum that's divided between two principal groups. " You lot " could easily be interpreted as the entirety of the proponent membership on the forum. I was right in correcting you. There was only one person who seemed to rejoice, while the rest seemed to deplore the act. In fact, I feel more proponents actually felt insulted.

You can backpedal until the cows come home. That doesn't mean that you're not wrong.

 

[Iyace]

Interesting response, considering that Steve was at least on the right track. But I'm glad to see not only less negativity than expected, but people speaking out against it.

I bet Steve is happy to be off about the degree of rejoicing under these circumstances.

Linda

Right. That's my point. Steve was off, and wrong. Are we now admitting that he was wrong?

 

[Iyace]

I didn't mean this negatively. I suspect that you "poisoned the well" in the sense that people who may have been inclined to rejoice, will be unable to do so now without proving you right. Especially one of the most negative members (Iyace). Good move. :)

Linda

Right. My comment was the first on this thread. I'll go ahead and quote the first two words for you.

Sad loss

Come on Linda, you aren't usually this blatantly wrong in two posts on the same page. You're losing a step.

 

[fls]

Right. My comment was the first on this thread. I'll go ahead and quote the first two words for you.

Sad loss

Excellent. Iyace's official word on the subject is no longer about ridiculing Stenger ("this made me face palm"), but about an expression of sympathy ("sad loss"). Steve's job is done here. :)

Linda

 

[malf]

Iyace. I can understand why Steve001 made his comment. The initial lack of 'believer' response to ghost's post here (and other nonsense he posts) could give the impression of tacit acceptance/approval of his views. He also gets a lot of 'likes' ...

If that view needed reinforcing, even now you're going after Steve and Linda rather than the "troll". (Given that you appointed yourself "troll-finder general" on the 'blue mule' thread, I would've thought that was more up your street.)