Notices
Results 1 to 48 of 48

Thread: Quit Referring to People With Religious Views as Nutcases

  1. #1 Quit Referring to People With Religious Views as Nutcases 
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    I am so sick and tired of seeing this on the forum. No I am not a "religious nut case" either.

    I don't believe in religion, but I used to and I will tell you something. Every time I would hear an atheist refer to religion in a offensive negative manner it pushed me further and further from believing in a scientific view.

    So I think as a community, instead of calling people who are religious nut jobs, just understand they simply don't have the same view of science. So by explaining science to them and how it works, the flaws in religion will come apparent, I can surely tell you calling them a nut job won't make them question their religion.

    So if this would stop I assure you, more people would be happy on the forum and the spread of knowledge will increase.

    Yes this is a scientific claim WITH evidence studied from myself.


    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    I am so sick and tired of seeing this on the forum. No I am not a "religious nut case" either.
    Examples please.
    (As opposed to calling someone a religious nutcase when they've already shown themselves to be religious AND a nutcase).

    Yes this is a scientific claim WITH evidence studied from myself.
    In other words it's not evidence it's anecdote and based on a sample of one.


    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    So I think as a community, instead of calling people who are religious nut jobs, just understand they simply don't have the same view of science


    They seem to have very little knowledge of science not dissimilar ones.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    Every time I would hear an atheist refer to religion in a offensive negative manner it pushed me further and further from believing in a scientific view.
    Why? Science has no bearing on atheism, There are religious scientists and there are atheists that actively have no interaction or interest in the scientific method.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    ...So by explaining science to them and how it works, the flaws in religion will come apparent, I can surely tell you calling them a nut job won't make them question their religion.

    So if this would stop I assure you, more people would be happy on the forum and the spread of knowledge will increase. ...
    I am quite tolerant of religion. However sometimes I see people posting who are, quite seriously, religious nut jobs. My experience with these people has been that no explanation gets through. The ones I am thinking about are hard core believers, the type of religious fanatics that honestly believe the King James Bible was personally edited by Jesus himself, or in some cases even believe Jesus wrote it out personally in perfect Elizabethan english. They will never see the flaws in their religion. If they ever did find a flaw in their religious belief, even the slightest doubt, they would blame it on Satan and refuse to ever think such faith threatening thoughts again.
    In most cases they are in denial about evolution or in denial about the age of Earth. Lately they have been running more attacks against climate change too.

    These are the people I call religious nutjobs. I am sorry if my telling such people what I think of them offends you, but I am not going to agree with some religious statement that the world was created in 6 days just because some fanatic's holy storybook says so.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Moderator Moderator Markus Hanke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    7,172
    Most religious people I know are moderate, and willing to see reason and discuss science in a rational manner. However, there is a small minority who hold extreme and fundamentalist views, and attempting to have a discussion with people like that is like trying to fight the wind - futile and a complete waste of time. I quite simply ignore such people. A few years ago I joined the Flat Earth Society forum, just for fun - it is absolutely astonishing just how self-deluded some religious fundamentalists can be ( though not everyone on there is religious, some are just standard cranks ); they will go to any length to protect their world view, even if it directly contradicts normal everyday experience. Some of it surely borders on certain forms of mental illnesses and conditions. Needless to say once I persisted in pointing out the glaringly obvious flaws in their convictions, I ended up being banned rather quickly ha ha
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    Many of us who post here frequently clearly wear our status as nut jobs proudly and flaunt our nutty-ness. The religious have as much right to be nut jobs as atheists. We need to be fair.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope cosmictraveler's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Key West, Florida, Earth
    Posts
    4,789
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Many of us who post here frequently clearly wear our status as nut jobs proudly and flaunt our nutty-ness. The religious have as much right to be nut jobs as atheists. We need to be fair.
    That is like saying dogs have as much rights to be cats. Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.
    Jimi Hendrix
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...
    ....Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    That isn't always true Cosmic.
    A lot of very prominent biologists and physicists have been deeply religious. The balance between atheists and religious scientist is not that far out of kilter.
    Like I said earlier, I have no problem with religious people generally.
    I have problems with the fundamentalist religious nuts.

    I suppose, since I inserted the word fundamentalist into that last sentence, I could generalize it to having problems with fundamentalist nutcases even when they are not religious.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope Paleoichneum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Washington State, USA
    Posts
    4,564
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Many of us who post here frequently clearly wear our status as nut jobs proudly and flaunt our nutty-ness. The religious have as much right to be nut jobs as atheists. We need to be fair.
    That is like saying dogs have as much rights to be cats. Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    Making generalizations such as this are the problem, cosmic, your statement is very clearly false, as exemplified by the numerous scientists that are also religious with no problem or conflict between the two sides of themselves.
    If more of us valued food and cheer and song above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world. -Thorin Oakenshield

    The needs of the many outweigh the need of the few - Spock of Vulcan & Sentinel Prime of Cybertron ---proof that "the needs" are in the eye of the beholder.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Paleoichneum View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Sealeaf View Post
    Many of us who post here frequently clearly wear our status as nut jobs proudly and flaunt our nutty-ness. The religious have as much right to be nut jobs as atheists. We need to be fair.
    That is like saying dogs have as much rights to be cats. Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    Making generalizations such as this are the problem, cosmic, your statement is very clearly false, as exemplified by the numerous scientists that are also religious with no problem or conflict between the two sides of themselves.

    Very objective and accurate view, nice post
    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...
    ....Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    That isn't always true Cosmic.
    A lot of very prominent biologists and physicists have been deeply religious. The balance between atheists and religious scientist is not that far out of kilter.
    It's also not true from the other direction.
    An atheist may or may not be of a scientific bent.
    I've come across a fair few non-believers (in god[s]) who happily subscribe to tarot, reiki, ghost stories and other assorted woo.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cosmictraveler View Post
    ...
    ....Atheists will find facts and use reasoning with critical thinking in their standpoints. Religious people won't use facts but rely only upon beliefs and faith which cannot be scientifically proven to exist.
    That isn't always true Cosmic.
    A lot of very prominent biologists and physicists have been deeply religious. The balance between atheists and religious scientist is not that far out of kilter.
    It's also not true from the other direction.
    An atheist may or may not be of a scientific bent.
    I've come across a fair few non-believers (in god[s]) who happily subscribe to tarot, reiki, ghost stories and other assorted woo.
    Do you call them nutcases?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    Do you call them nutcases?
    Of course I f*cking do.
    A nutcase is a nutcase, regardless of religious views.
    (I see little discernible difference between various beliefs in the ridiculous and unsupported whether those beliefs are in god, spirits, aliens, healing energy or whatever else).
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    That isn't always true Cosmic.
    A lot of very prominent biologists and physicists have been deeply religious. The balance between atheists and religious scientist is not that far out of kilter.
    It's also not true from the other direction.
    An atheist may or may not be of a scientific bent.
    I've come across a fair few non-believers (in god[s]) who happily subscribe to tarot, reiki, ghost stories and other assorted woo.
    exactly right, thanks.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by robittybob1 View Post
    do you call them nutcases?
    of course i f*cking do.
    A nutcase is a nutcase, regardless of religious views.
    (i see little discernible difference between various beliefs in the ridiculous and unsupported whether those beliefs are in god, spirits, aliens, healing energy or whatever else).
    tcs/5.a
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,430
    Wd40...(I know the "D" should be a capital, tell that to my f***ing phone...)
    Last edited by PhDemon; August 14th, 2014 at 06:29 AM. Reason: f*cking autocorrect
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    281

    (not only Christians). This is what some hardcore religious fanatics are like, they're simply nut cases and there's no point in arguing with them.
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post

    (not only Christians). This is what some hardcore religious fanatics are like, they're simply nut cases and there's no point in arguing with them.
    From their point of view you are the same way, let's not be biased.

    For all we known religion COULD be right, just unlikely if you believe in science
    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    281
    I've never literally or figuratively put my fingers in my ears and gone 'la la la'. I follow the evidence where it leads. I have never said 'Well you just have to have faith.' And if I am from their point of view the same way, it would also be another of their faith based positions, just like their religion. 'Believe in science'. You mean, accept the demonstration that science is the best method we have for finding out what is likely and what is unlikely. For all we know, religion could be right, but is extremely unlikely if you follow the evidence where it leads. And it just makes me chuckle how I'm being called biased :P
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    From their point of view you are the same way, let's not be biased.
    Apart from the slight problem (for them) that every claim that science makes has evidence, and not one of theirs does.

    For all we known religion COULD be right
    Uh what?
    1) Which religion?
    2) Every testable claim they've made so far has been shown to be false. What do you think the chances of the vague untestable claims being right are likely to be?

    just unlikely if you believe in science
    Um, no. Just unlikely. Full stop.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    281
    Yes! Thank you Dywyddyr. Saying if you believe in science then it's unlikely, is just saying that there are people out there, who don't believe in science. They themselves are saying 'I ignore demonstrated facts, and in this mystical world where science is wrong, then my contention is correct.'
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    believe in science
    I read these words three times and my nose started to bleed. Funny how I've actually seen people SERIOUSLY say those words while on a computer, wearing synthetic fabrics, sitting in their air conditioned house...
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    believe in science
    I read these words three times and my nose started to bleed. Funny how I've actually seen people SERIOUSLY say those words while on a computer, wearing synthetic fabrics, sitting in their air conditioned house...
    That is OK as long as you are not confusing believing in science with believing in technology Flick.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    From their point of view you are the same way, let's not be biased.
    Apart from the slight problem (for them) that every claim that science makes has evidence, and not one of theirs does.

    For all we known religion COULD be right
    Uh what?
    1) Which religion?
    2) Every testable claim they've made so far has been shown to be false. What do you think the chances of the vague untestable claims being right are likely to be?

    just unlikely if you believe in science
    Um, no. Just unlikely. Full stop.
    Unless you are now the creator of the universe, you should silence yourself.

    Not a single scientist knows how the universe ACTUALLY works, or got created. Any theoretical physicist knows that their ENTIRE perspective on science can change at a moments notice. Just like when we knew that the earth was the center of the universe.


    Until you can PROVE religion is not true you shouldn't make any comments against it.

    Secondly, for all we know EVERYTHING could be a simulation and the laws of physics are an imaginary thing.

    Do I believe that? NO I DON'T, is it possible? I am so glad I left this forum. I now know why this forum has so much anger, you guys are close minded. You simply argue everything about any concept you haven't heard of.

    If you haven't heard it, it must be wrong, that is one if the fundamental flaws in humans recently, failure to accept change. The users on this physics forum I am on know don't disregard ANY ideas, they simply evaluate them scientifically and look for flaws and explain the flaws
    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    Unless you are now the creator of the universe, you should silence yourself.
    Not a single scientist knows how the universe ACTUALLY works, or got created. Any theoretical physicist knows that their ENTIRE perspective on science can change at a moments notice. Just like when we knew that the earth was the center of the universe.
    Perhaps you should learn how to read.
    Or get someone else to read - and explain - it to you.
    (Oh, and go learn some history).

    Until you can PROVE religion is not true you shouldn't make any comments against it.
    Utter bollocks.
    Like I said: Every testable claim they've made so far has been shown to be false.
    Should we include bright green pixies in nuclear physics because we can't "prove they're not true"?

    Secondly, for all we know EVERYTHING could be a simulation and the laws of physics are an imaginary thing.
    And another failure of comprehension.
    If we're in a simulation then the laws of physics are just as imaginary as we are: i.e they're real to us.

    I am so glad I left this forum.
    And yet here you are...

    I now know why this forum has so much anger
    Assumption.

    you guys are close minded
    Assumption.

    You simply argue everything about any concept you haven't heard of.
    More bollocks.
    What makes you think we haven't heard this sh* t a thousand times before?

    If you haven't heard it, it must be wrong, that is one if the fundamental flaws in humans recently, failure to accept change.
    See above.

    The users on this physics forum I am on know don't disregard ANY ideas, they simply evaluate them scientifically and look for flaws and explain the flaws
    Yeah, two possibilities here.
    Either you're not understanding what happens here or the forum you're now doesn't actually do what you say.
    Maybe they're less critical because they're not actually doing science.
    (You did notice by the way that I pointed out the flaws? Or did you simply read my pointing out flaws as "close-minded dismissal"?)
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    Unless you are now the creator of the universe, you should silence yourself.
    Not a single scientist knows how the universe ACTUALLY works, or got created. Any theoretical physicist knows that their ENTIRE perspective on science can change at a moments notice. Just like when we knew that the earth was the center of the universe.
    Perhaps you should learn how to read.
    Or get someone else to read - and explain - it to you.
    (Oh, and go learn some history).

    Until you can PROVE religion is not true you shouldn't make any comments against it.
    Utter bollocks.
    Like I said: Every testable claim they've made so far has been shown to be false.
    Should we include bright green pixies in nuclear physics because we can't "prove they're not true"?

    Secondly, for all we know EVERYTHING could be a simulation and the laws of physics are an imaginary thing.
    And another failure of comprehension.
    If we're in a simulation then the laws of physics are just as imaginary as we are: i.e they're real to us.

    I am so glad I left this forum.
    And yet here you are...

    I now know why this forum has so much anger
    Assumption.

    you guys are close minded
    Assumption.

    You simply argue everything about any concept you haven't heard of.
    More bollocks.
    What makes you think we haven't heard this sh* t a thousand times before?

    If you haven't heard it, it must be wrong, that is one if the fundamental flaws in humans recently, failure to accept change.
    See above.

    The users on this physics forum I am on know don't disregard ANY ideas, they simply evaluate them scientifically and look for flaws and explain the flaws
    Yeah, two possibilities here.
    Either you're not understanding what happens here or the forum you're now doesn't actually do what you say.
    Maybe they're less critical because they're not actually doing science.
    (You did notice by the way that I pointed out the flaws? Or did you simply read my pointing out flaws as "close-minded dismissal"?)
    Green pixies! Nutcase!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    You had to quote my entire post just for one comment on part of one sentence?
    You think they're beige? Or mauve?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    4,138
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    You had to quote my entire post just for one comment on part of one sentence?
    You think they're beige? Or mauve?
    That proved my point from several months ago (on some other thread) where I said it was those atheists that start talking about the fanciful creatures first.
    Things like Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the like.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    That proved my point from several months ago (on some other thread) where I said it was those atheists that start talking about the fanciful creatures first.
    Things like Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the like.
    Yeah, perhaps you have trouble with context.
    Any claim that we "shouldn't make comments against religion until we can "prove" it's not true" is, ipso facto, an introduction of fanciful concepts.
    Now, I realise that ScienceNoob claims that he "doesn't believe in religion" 1 but his attitude says he's at the very least a closet theist 2.
    Which would make your "point" wrong.
    Never mind, you're probably used to that by now.

    1 A blatantly ridiculous claim. Religion exists, not believing in it is like claiming you don't believe in cars. I assume he meant he doesn't believe what religion tells him.
    2 Or seriously deluded as to what evidence means in science.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Robittybob1 View Post
    That proved my point from several months ago (on some other thread) where I said it was those atheists that start talking about the fanciful creatures first.
    Things like Flying Spaghetti Monsters and the like.
    Yeah, perhaps you have trouble with context.
    Any claim that we "shouldn't make comments against religion until we can "prove" it's not true" is, ipso facto, an introduction of fanciful concepts.
    Now, I realise that ScienceNoob claims that he "doesn't believe in religion" 1 but his attitude says he's a at the very least a closet theist 2.
    Which would make your "point" wrong.
    Never mind, you're probably used to that by now.

    1 A blatantly ridiculous claim. Religion exists, not believing in it is like claiming you don't believe in cars. I assume he meant he doesn't believe what religion tells him.
    2 Or seriously deluded as to what "evidence" means in science.
    What I am saying man, is that people can have their own views of the universe. That's all science, and religion is. A view of the universe.

    Most of the mormon people I have met are some of the NICEST I have met in my life amazing people, so to call these people nutcases as you have stated you do throughout this thread simply because they don't follow your view of the universe sounds primitive to me.

    How can you expect them to accept science if you can't accept the idea that people have a different view on the universe.
    Newbie to Science, trying to educate myself on this forum and further my scientific knowledge.

    I like to ask a ton of questions so please be understanding!

    I like to think of new stuff and in new ways.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    What I am saying man, is that people can have their own views of the universe. That's all science, and religion is. A view of the universe.
    Quite.
    And, as I have pointed out at least twice in this thread alone, the religious "view of the universe", where testable, has been shown to be wrong.

    Most of the mormon people I have met are some of the NICEST I have met in my life amazing people, so to call these people nutcases as you have stated you do throughout this thread simply because they don't follow your view of the universe sounds primitive to me.
    "Nice" is irrelevant.
    Ignoring reality (or trying to invent your own) is - in and of itself - what nutcases do.

    How can you expect them to accept science if you can't accept the idea that people have a different view on the universe.
    And another mistake.
    Yes I accept that they have another view of the universe.
    I also understand that that view A) has been shown to be incorrect as far as reality goes and B) is insidiously invasive and prescriptive.
    And, in a large number of cases, outright f*cking lethal.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Flick Montana View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Curiosity View Post
    believe in science
    I read these words three times and my nose started to bleed. Funny how I've actually seen people SERIOUSLY say those words while on a computer, wearing synthetic fabrics, sitting in their air conditioned house...
    That is OK as long as you are not confusing believing in science with believing in technology Flick.
    I'm not sure how to differentiate the two. Isn't that like driving a car while claiming inertia is nonsense? Seems potentially dangerous.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Junior anticorncob28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Nebraska, USA
    Posts
    214
    The vast majority of people I see being called "religious nut cases" or (I prefer) "religious nuts" are those who believe things like earth is 6000 years old and evolution isn't real.
    UNIVERSAL TRUTHS:
    1) There are no universal truths, other than this one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    ***** Participant Write4U's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    1,242
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    ...So by explaining science to them and how it works, the flaws in religion will come apparent, I can surely tell you calling them a nut job won't make them question their religion.

    So if this would stop I assure you, more people would be happy on the forum and the spread of knowledge will increase. ...
    I am quite tolerant of religion. However sometimes I see people posting who are, quite seriously, religious nut jobs. My experience with these people has been that no explanation gets through. The ones I am thinking about are hard core believers, the type of religious fanatics that honestly believe the King James Bible was personally edited by Jesus himself, or in some cases even believe Jesus wrote it out personally in perfect Elizabethan english. They will never see the flaws in their religion. If they ever did find a flaw in their religious belief, even the slightest doubt, they would blame it on Satan and refuse to ever think such faith threatening thoughts again.In most cases they are in denial about evolution or in denial about the age of Earth. Lately they have been running more attacks against climate change too.

    These are the people I call religious nutjobs. I am sorry if my telling such people what I think of them offends you, but I am not going to agree with some religious statement that the world was created in 6 days just because some fanatic's holy storybook says so.
    One of my favorite questions to a theist is: "at what point does God's mysterious works become works of the Devil? Where is that fine line when looking at natural disasters where thousands of innocents lose their lives, including theists and atheists alike?
    "Art is the creation of that which evokes an emotional response, leading to thoughts of the noblest kind" (W4U)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    281
    ScienceNoob, you're now one of millions of people, who misuse the description 'close minded'. It's been so heavily misused, it typically means, 'you don't agree with me'. Whenever someone comes up to you with a ghost claim, they typically use an argument from ignorance and are contradictory, where they say that they have no idea what it was, and that they couldn't explain it, therefore they can explain it, because it must mean it's a ghost. When you tell them all these more plausible explanations, such as stress or fatigue induced delusion, or simply a natural phenomena that they're not familiar with, they'll call you close minded. They think you're somehow inherently unable to consider the possibility, meanwhile shooing away your more likely explanations. Who is being close minded here?
    And it's actually a great thing we argue about concepts we've never heard of before (though we typically have), because as anybody here will tell you, you don't need a master's degree to be able to reduce arguments to their most basic form, and recognise logical flaws.
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    What I am saying man, is that people can have their own views of the universe. That's all science, and religion is. A view of the universe.
    Quite.
    And, as I have pointed out at least twice in this thread alone, the religious "view of the universe", where testable, has been shown to be wrong.

    Most of the mormon people I have met are some of the NICEST I have met in my life amazing people, so to call these people nutcases as you have stated you do throughout this thread simply because they don't follow your view of the universe sounds primitive to me.
    "Nice" is irrelevant.
    Ignoring reality (or trying to invent your own) is - in and of itself - what nutcases do.

    How can you expect them to accept science if you can't accept the idea that people have a different view on the universe.
    And another mistake.
    Yes I accept that they have another view of the universe.
    I also understand that that view A) has been shown to be incorrect as far as reality goes and B) is insidiously invasive and prescriptive.
    And, in a large number of cases, outright f*cking lethal.
    What's your definition of crazy if not an atypical brain? How can the majority of the people on the planet be crazy? Wouldn't that make crazy not crazy but ordinary?

    Note: I am not claiming how can most people be so wrong. That most people believe something is not evidence for it. But if most people are religious, doesn't that indicate that ordinary, healthy brains and mind sets are religious?

    Quote Originally Posted by Write4U View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dan hunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ScienceNoob View Post
    ...So by explaining science to them and how it works, the flaws in religion will come apparent, I can surely tell you calling them a nut job won't make them question their religion.

    So if this would stop I assure you, more people would be happy on the forum and the spread of knowledge will increase. ...
    I am quite tolerant of religion. However sometimes I see people posting who are, quite seriously, religious nut jobs. My experience with these people has been that no explanation gets through. The ones I am thinking about are hard core believers, the type of religious fanatics that honestly believe the King James Bible was personally edited by Jesus himself, or in some cases even believe Jesus wrote it out personally in perfect Elizabethan english. They will never see the flaws in their religion. If they ever did find a flaw in their religious belief, even the slightest doubt, they would blame it on Satan and refuse to ever think such faith threatening thoughts again.In most cases they are in denial about evolution or in denial about the age of Earth. Lately they have been running more attacks against climate change too.

    These are the people I call religious nutjobs. I am sorry if my telling such people what I think of them offends you, but I am not going to agree with some religious statement that the world was created in 6 days just because some fanatic's holy storybook says so.
    One of my favorite questions to a theist is: "at what point does God's mysterious works become works of the Devil? Where is that fine line when looking at natural disasters where thousands of innocents lose their lives, including theists and atheists alike?
    Do most theists believe in the devil? Most religious and mythological views have some sort of demonic beings, but a divine source of evil to contrast with a divine source of good is largely a Christian and Islamic thing, isn't it? The closest thing Judaism has is Ha-Satan, who is more of a prosecuting attorney than an anti-thesis to G-d.

    I'd answer your question with a disbelief in the kind of devil you are talking about and that the world is largely naturalistic, even if I believe in various entities that might be able to influence these things. But even they would be naturalistic consequences of prior events. Time and chance happen to all. Everything doesn't have to be the direct result of a divine edict.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Double Post
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    What's your definition of crazy if not an atypical brain? How can the majority of the people on the planet be crazy? Wouldn't that make crazy not crazy but ordinary?

    Note: I am not claiming how can most people be so wrong. That most people believe something is not evidence for it. But if most people are religious, doesn't that indicate that ordinary, healthy brains and mind sets are religious?
    There's crazy and there's batshit crazy.
    Being able to function in society means you can be crazy, but as soon as you become batshit crazy you can't.
    It does, of course, depend to some extent on the rest of that society (see, for example, the link I gave in my previous post: a self-reinforcing position that prayer cures illness - even to the extent that letting children die is not only acceptable but going to a doctor to prevent those deaths makes you a pariah).
    In that latter case I can only hope that they come to their senses (best option) or die out altogether before they manage to recruit sufficient people to become a self-sustaining sub-society.

    As for "that ordinary, healthy brains and mind sets are religious" that may well have been true at one time: when we knew less about how things work, when we had less evidence to ignore, when ignoring available evidence wasn't so potentially serious. But that's becoming less and less the case.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    The vast majority of people I see being called "religious nut cases" or (I prefer) "religious nuts" are those who believe things like earth is 6000 years old and evolution isn't real.
    But in my experience, that isn't usually true. I'm from the Bible Belt, West Virginia, and many family members and friends, (even my room-mate and an ex girlfriend that I dated for about two years,) hold that belief. The opinion is totally insane at every level. But the people are mostly normal, and generally capable of speaking rationally and changing their minds on issues of politics or day to day decisions. They are sane in the other areas of their life, (except for my ex-girlfriend.) It's cognitive dissonance, not true mental illness. When you are afraid of burning in hell forever, you are capable of incredible levels of willful ignorance to avoid confronting that fear. If they are actively promoting their nonsense, sure, it is fair to call them cranks. It's fair to say the view is crazy. But the people aren't actually nuts.

    They're usually qualified to speak competently within their areas of expertise, (which do not include science,) and perform well at their jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by anticorncob28 View Post
    The vast majority of people I see being called "religious nut cases" or (I prefer) "religious nuts" are those who believe things like earth is 6000 years old and evolution isn't real.
    But in my experience, that isn't usually true. I'm from the Bible Belt, West Virginia, and many family members and friends, (even my room-mate and an ex girlfriend that I dated for about two years,) hold that belief. The opinion is totally insane at every level. But the people are mostly normal, and generally capable of speaking rationally and changing their minds on issues of politics or day to day decisions. They are sane in the other areas of their life, (except for my ex-girlfriend.) It's cognitive dissonance, not true mental illness. When you are afraid of burning in hell forever, you are capable of incredible levels of willful ignorance to avoid confronting that fear. If they are actively promoting their nonsense, sure, it is fair to call them cranks. It's fair to say the view is crazy. But the people aren't actually nuts.

    They're usually qualified to speak competently within their areas of expertise, (which do not include science,) and perform well at their jobs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    What's your definition of crazy if not an atypical brain? How can the majority of the people on the planet be crazy? Wouldn't that make crazy not crazy but ordinary?

    Note: I am not claiming how can most people be so wrong. That most people believe something is not evidence for it. But if most people are religious, doesn't that indicate that ordinary, healthy brains and mind sets are religious?
    There's crazy and there's batshit crazy.
    Being able to function in society means you can be crazy, but as soon as you become batshit crazy you can't.
    It does, of course, depend to some extent on the rest of that society (see, for example, the link I gave in my previous post: a self-reinforcing position that prayer cures illness - even to the extent that letting children die is not only acceptable but going to a doctor to prevent those deaths makes you a pariah).
    In that latter case I can only hope that they come to their senses (best option) or die out altogether before they manage to recruit sufficient people to become a self-sustaining sub-society.

    As for "that ordinary, healthy brains and mind sets are religious" that may well have been true at one time: when we knew less about how things work, when we had less evidence to ignore, when ignoring available evidence wasn't so potentially serious. But that's becoming less and less the case.
    Except that most people are still religious. Although we are witnessing religious people taking their holy books less and less literally at an alarming rate. Either way, what is the insanity in believing prayer can help cure illness as long as you do everything necessary to cure the disease physically?

    When my father became ill, he had people praying for him all over the country. But he immediately went to the best experts in the country and did every treatment the doctors suggested. And religious views that were anti-vaccines or anti-psych meds incensed him. Yet he believed in the power of prayer. I don't see the harm or any evidence of crazy. Shoot, even atheists doctors think prayer can be helpful because positive thinking effects your immune system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    In that latter case I can only hope that they come to their senses (best option) or die out altogether before they manage to recruit sufficient people to become a self-sustaining sub-society.
    I know a family who's very homeopathic and very anti-psychology. Anti-vaccine, anti-hospital, all natural birth. You know the type. I've known them for years. Nice people. The past few years, their tune has been gradually changing. From nearly dying during a home birth, to a child developing a major personality disorder, they've been taking their children to doctors and psychiatrists recently. I'm sorry it's taken so long, but ultimately, these nonsense views are self-defeating. Because truths are stronger than lies. Crazy ideas that don't really change someone's lives persist, but I've seen views that actually make someone's life worse change a lot. It can take years and traumatic experiences, but most people choose to abandon their views rather than ruin their life.
    Last edited by SowZ37; August 15th, 2014 at 11:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    281
    Pretty sure in both Dywyddyr's and my case, when we call someone stupid or crazy, we aren't summarising their entire character, only what they have presented to us.
    I can never know I'm right, but I can know that I'm wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Except that most people are still religious. Although we are witnessing religious people taking their holy books less and less literally at an alarming rate. Either way, what is the insanity in believing prayer can help cure illness as long as you do everything necessary to cure the disease physically?
    I did distinguish between (functionally crazy) and batshit crazy.
    People who "religiously" have the horoscopes cast are crazy - but it doesn't, generally, prevent them form leading a normal life.
    When a president or prime minister takes a country to war because "they asked god and he said it was the right thing to do" that's batshit crazy (but, somehow, they get away with it).

    When my father became ill, he had people praying for him all over the country. But he immediately went to the best experts in the country and did every treatment the doctors suggested. And religious views that were anti-vaccines or anti-psych meds incensed him. Yet he believed in the power of prayer. I don't see the harm or any evidence of crazy. Shoot, even atheists doctors think prayer can be helpful because positive thinking effects your immune system.
    It's crazy because prayer does nothing (except for the "feel good thing" - and there's probably other ways to get that, it's just that this one is embedded in society ) - and atheist doctors are aware that a (large?) part of health is state of mind, which explains why they'd "advocate" prayer.
    IOW your dad was functionally crazy - and considerably more functional than crazy from the sound of it.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Except that most people are still religious. Although we are witnessing religious people taking their holy books less and less literally at an alarming rate. Either way, what is the insanity in believing prayer can help cure illness as long as you do everything necessary to cure the disease physically?
    I did distinguish between (functionally crazy) and batshit crazy.
    People who "religiously" have the horoscopes cast are crazy - but it doesn't, generally, prevent them form leading a normal life.
    When a president or prime minister takes a country to war because "they asked god and he said it was the right thing to do" that's batshit crazy (but, somehow, they get away with it).

    When my father became ill, he had people praying for him all over the country. But he immediately went to the best experts in the country and did every treatment the doctors suggested. And religious views that were anti-vaccines or anti-psych meds incensed him. Yet he believed in the power of prayer. I don't see the harm or any evidence of crazy. Shoot, even atheists doctors think prayer can be helpful because positive thinking effects your immune system.
    It's crazy because prayer does nothing (except for the "feel good thing" - and there's probably other ways to get that, it's just that this one is embedded in society ) - and atheist doctors are aware that a (large?) part of health is state of mind, which explains why they'd "advocate" prayer.
    IOW your dad was functionally crazy - and considerably more functional than crazy from the sound of it.
    Ehh, I think that definition of crazy quickly loses usefulness. Like I said earlier, I understand calling the view crazy, even if I don't agree. But calling the person crazy is a stretch. If someone accepts the teachings of science, understands medicine and psychology, makes rational choices based on evaluating the variables, interacts with people well and doesn't have unreasonable expectations from others, etc. etc., you get my point, and they just happen to be religious? Calling that person crazy makes the word crazy largely meaningless. Crazy no longer means someone who lacks sanity or the capacity for critical thinking. It just means anyone who holds any irrational beliefs. After all, an atheist who believed in ghosts or who didn't believe in GMOs or subscribed to a couple wacky conspiracy theories should also be crazy by this standard.

    This would make the vast majority of people crazy. And if almost everyone is crazy, what's the point in even calling them such? What useful information is being communicated other than an insult?

    I don't get it. Especially when it seems to have zero bearing on your ability to function, and even excel, in society.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Ehh, I think that definition of crazy quickly loses usefulness. Like I said earlier, I understand calling the view crazy, even if I don't agree. But calling the person crazy is a stretch. If someone accepts the teachings of science, understands medicine and psychology, makes rational choices based on evaluating the variables, interacts with people well and doesn't have unreasonable expectations from others, etc. etc., you get my point, and they just happen to be religious? Calling that person crazy makes the word crazy largely meaningless.
    Because, unless they compartmentalise severely the religion will "inform" the rest of their life. It will leak into other aspects.

    Crazy no longer means someone who lacks sanity or the capacity for critical thinking. It just means anyone who holds any irrational beliefs. After all, an atheist who believed in ghosts or who didn't believe in GMOs or subscribed to a couple wacky conspiracy theories should also be crazy by this standard.
    I did say that too:
    A nutcase is a nutcase, regardless of religious views.
    (I see little discernible difference between various beliefs in the ridiculous and unsupported whether those beliefs are in god, spirits, aliens, healing energy or whatever else).
    And if almost everyone is crazy, what's the point in even calling them such? What useful information is being communicated other than an insult?
    Apart from calling their attention to the fact that they're being irrational you mean?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Ehh, I think that definition of crazy quickly loses usefulness. Like I said earlier, I understand calling the view crazy, even if I don't agree. But calling the person crazy is a stretch. If someone accepts the teachings of science, understands medicine and psychology, makes rational choices based on evaluating the variables, interacts with people well and doesn't have unreasonable expectations from others, etc. etc., you get my point, and they just happen to be religious? Calling that person crazy makes the word crazy largely meaningless.
    Because, unless they compartmentalise severely the religion will "inform" the rest of their life. It will leak into other aspects.

    Crazy no longer means someone who lacks sanity or the capacity for critical thinking. It just means anyone who holds any irrational beliefs. After all, an atheist who believed in ghosts or who didn't believe in GMOs or subscribed to a couple wacky conspiracy theories should also be crazy by this standard.
    I did say that too:
    A nutcase is a nutcase, regardless of religious views.
    (I see little discernible difference between various beliefs in the ridiculous and unsupported whether those beliefs are in god, spirits, aliens, healing energy or whatever else).
    And if almost everyone is crazy, what's the point in even calling them such? What useful information is being communicated other than an insult?
    Apart from calling their attention to the fact that they're being irrational you mean?
    Sure, telling someone they are being irrational is fair. But saying someone is crazy carries an implication that they are inherently irrational. I wouldn't call someone who's lied a time or two a liar. I wouldn't call someone who occasionally downloaded illegal music a thief. I wouldn't call someone who got plastered a couple times a year a drunk. In the same way, I wouldn't call someone who held a couple crazy beliefs crazy. Not if, on the whole, they weren't crazy. (Though you and I probably have different lines on what qualifies as a crazy belief.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,677
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Sure, telling someone they are being irrational is fair. But saying someone is crazy carries an implication that they are inherently irrational. I wouldn't call someone who's lied a time or two a liar. I wouldn't call someone who occasionally downloaded illegal music a thief. I wouldn't call someone who got plastered a couple times a year a drunk. In the same way, I wouldn't call someone who held a couple crazy beliefs crazy.
    In real life I'd agree.
    But on a forum your personality tends to get "concentrated".
    Few posters exhibit "crazy" for just a couple of posts (and, in my experience, they realise they've done so and apologise - or at least give a reason).
    Likewise, someone who posts falsehoods rarely does it just the once. (Again, my experience, but posters who lie even twice tend to go on to do it more than twice until dishonesty becomes an expected - if not accepted - behaviour).
    Whether or not people display "crazy" or lie on a forum doesn't necessarily mean they do so in real life - I really couldn't say - but someone (everyone?) who "behaves" a certain way on a forum tends to continue in the same vein unless/ until some drastic reform takes place.
    Which suggests that any characteristic that's "prevalent" enough to be remarked upon is a "defining" characteristic of the poster's "style" even if not the poster themselves.

    On a forum you're in a "select group", much like one particular circle of friends in real life: we usually have different circles or groups in real life and it's normal to behave in different ways with each group - displaying a different facet of your personality to each.
    The group on a forum is - for the most part - one group that's always the same one all the time (newbies excepted - and they go through the "fit in or get out" thing), this your behaviour in that forum will be, by and large, consistent because we've each found our "comfortable niche" in that group.
    Whether consistently crazy, consistently pleasant or consistently curmudgeonly it's going to be - all the time - much the same.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    592
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SowZ37 View Post
    Sure, telling someone they are being irrational is fair. But saying someone is crazy carries an implication that they are inherently irrational. I wouldn't call someone who's lied a time or two a liar. I wouldn't call someone who occasionally downloaded illegal music a thief. I wouldn't call someone who got plastered a couple times a year a drunk. In the same way, I wouldn't call someone who held a couple crazy beliefs crazy.
    In real life I'd agree.
    But on a forum your personality tends to get "concentrated".
    Few posters exhibit "crazy" for just a couple of posts (and, in my experience, they realise they've done so and apologise - or at least give a reason).
    Likewise, someone who posts falsehoods rarely does it just the once. (Again, my experience, but posters who lie even twice tend to go on to do it more than twice until dishonesty becomes an expected - if not accepted - behaviour).
    Whether or not people display "crazy" or lie on a forum doesn't necessarily mean they do so in real life - I really couldn't say - but someone (everyone?) who "behaves" a certain way on a forum tends to continue in the same vein unless/ until some drastic reform takes place.
    Which suggests that any characteristic that's "prevalent" enough to be remarked upon is a "defining" characteristic of the poster's "style" even if not the poster themselves.

    On a forum you're in a "select group", much like one particular circle of friends in real life: we usually have different circles or groups in real life and it's normal to behave in different ways with each group - displaying a different facet of your personality to each.
    The group on a forum is - for the most part - one group that's always the same one all the time (newbies excepted - and they go through the "fit in or get out" thing), this your behaviour in that forum will be, by and large, consistent because we've each found our "comfortable niche" in that group.
    Whether consistently crazy, consistently pleasant or consistently curmudgeonly it's going to be - all the time - much the same.
    I suppose if you're more black and white on the internet than you would be in real life, that's fairly typical on the internet. I try not to act that way myself, but I'm not going to say you are wrong for doing so on a web forum. Your analysis of how people act within a web forum is probably accurate most the time.
    Last edited by SowZ37; August 16th, 2014 at 12:37 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    The OP asked us not to refer to people as 'religious nut-cases', which I think is a fair request. Most religious people are 'nice' ordinary people, like most non-religious people are.

    I am not religious at all, but I respect those who live their lives according to their belief. I think they are wrong, but that's my opinion and their belief doesn't necessarily make them bad people. Religion used to instil a moral code into society, which was no bad thing.

    My personal definition of a religious nut-case is an extremist, or one who murders or maims people in the name of their own religion.

    (The thread then descended into the usual argument caused by that duck who usually just criticises other people's posts and rarely posts any original thought, ideas or theories of his own - have a word with yourself mate.)

    Science works out theories which it then tests. For example, acceleration can be tested, measured, and PROVEN to be correct. The structure of matter, ditto. Science does not have all the answers yet, but it is working on it, and finding evidence and proof as it goes.

    Existence of a god, or intelligent design has not so far been tested or measured - it is only a vague feeling or indeed a belief of cause and effect. Has there ever been a double blind test proving that prayer works for example? Religion seems to me to be just a way of life for certain communities - to differentiate themselves from other communities, and is perpetuated by what seems to me to be conditioning - basically 'hypnotism' of young minds.

    OB
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 25
    Last Post: February 21st, 2014, 01:23 PM
  2. Why do religious people have to pray?
    By PumaMan in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: May 5th, 2013, 02:01 PM
  3. Do Aliens Exist? (No religious views please)
    By Gatene in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: February 8th, 2013, 07:31 AM
  4. Religious views of a scientific mind
    By fearful forever in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 8th, 2005, 04:17 PM
  5. Atheist and religious people.
    By ps2huang in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: December 7th, 2005, 07:37 PM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •