For those missing SD's Interesting Contributions here in the nether regions, please turn to the Mr. Polly thread in Heaven, where a loooooooong and typical post awaits you.
TL/DR.
IJ
Oh, c'mon, that's in Heaven, and the purpose is to have a friendly chat about books. She's read the book and has answered the questions with her own thoughts, as we all do. My contributions to such threads tend to be loooooong too. Seems a bit mean to mock a person's every attempt to contribute to the Ship - especially when it was on this Hell thread that people were suggesting she post in some other threads as well as Purg.
Oh sure, and at the same time you're taking over the evangelisation thread with your same old, same olbullshit.
If you think that, I am surprised, then, that you and others did not simply ignore my posts there.
All eleventeen of them?
I heard tell of the unwise evangelical mission to thoughtless and unhelpful territory, so I went to Purgatory to read your posts for myself. There was nothing Purgatorial that I could add, so I just waited for posts on this thread instead.
Everyone is stupid sometimes, even nominally non-stupid people. This particular vein of stupidity is awfully deep and long, in a thoughtlessly persistent way.
Part of the conversion on the evangelisation thread is valid (although, not strictly relevant to the subject of the thread). That is the question of the use of the word "scientism" - this is one of those words that has value (in that it describes a broad range of philosophical positions, verging on faith positions, which elevate the scientific method and findings above what they are able to support), though the fact that it describes a range of positions can sometimes make it unhelpfully imprecise verging on the inaccurate; but, it's also a big problem because the vast majority (if not all) people who have such philosophical faith positions wouldn't identify those with the word "scientism", it's a word applied by others (though, it's not the only word applied to people when they wouldn't use that word, "religionist" has been used by lilBuddha on that thread, subsequently recognised as pejorative, calling religious beliefs "superstitions" is another).
Though (and because I know this is Hell) what could have been an interesting discussion (especially if started on a shiny new thread rather than derail the evangelisation one) was still born through the evangelistic fervour of someone largely ignorant of the subject (if someone truly believes that science is the only means of determining truth, and that science proves there's no god, then it's not unreasonable to expect at least a passing knowledge of philosophy of science) stomping through the discussion with the subtlety of several herds of elephants.
<snip> but, it's also a big problem because the vast majority (if not all) people who have such philosophical faith positions wouldn't identify those with the word "scientism", it's a word applied by others <snip>
People who succumb to scientism reject the term, I think, because they reject the idea that there is anything wrong or illogical or faith-based with what essentially equates to hard-core logical positivism. The scientifically discoverable/describable IS the full extent of the real world and vice-versa. They see nothing wrong with this reductionism, and therefore need no word, let alone a pejorative word, to describe their worldview.
Everything evidenced through science is real. What's real that isn't?
Stop fetishizing science as an arbiter of reality. It is a tool for the systematic improvement of knowledge, that is all. The entire field of quantum physics is one conclusively negative experiment away from discarding decades of theorizing down theoretical extrapolations. It's about making better guesses that are decreasing in likelihood of being wrong, not some absolute certification of truth...
A fine rhetorical if not postmodern response. But mine was an open question. I liked DoubleThink's (sorry for case errors in memory there) response. Although I do think that morality has a biological basis in every regard including in analytical abstractions like utilitarianism and deontology. I can't think of an exception. Morality is amenable to science. what isn't? To the systematic improvement of knowledge. Science can judge it.
I'm puzzled about why people continue to engage on Purg threads with Susan Doris and then get mad. You know how the conversation is going to go, so why respond at all?
No answer needed, I'm simply expressing my increasing mystification at the strangeness of human interaction.
Part of the conversion on the evangelisation thread is valid (although, not strictly relevant to the subject of the thread). That is the question of the use of the word "scientism" - this is one of those words that has value (in that it describes a broad range of philosophical positions, verging on faith positions, which elevate the scientific method and findings above what they are able to support), though the fact that it describes a range of positions can sometimes make it unhelpfully imprecise verging on the inaccurate; but, it's also a big problem because the vast majority (if not all) people who have such philosophical faith positions wouldn't identify those with the word "scientism", it's a word applied by others (though, it's not the only word applied to people when they wouldn't use that word, "religionist" has been used by lilBuddha on that thread, subsequently recognised as pejorative, calling religious beliefs "superstitions" is another).
Though (and because I know this is Hell) what could have been an interesting discussion (especially if started on a shiny new thread rather than derail the evangelisation one) was still born through the evangelistic fervour of someone largely ignorant of the subject
That is a huge assumption and, in fact, an incorrect one. Why do you assume that I know nothing of evangelism, and on what do you base that assumption?
(if someone truly believes that science is the only means of determining truth,
Then that person would need first to define very cleerly the word truth.
and that science proves there's no god,
As far as I know, no scientist has done that, and I certainly have never said such a thing.
then it's not unreasonable to expect at least a passing knowledge of philosophy of science)
I happily acknowledge that I have not made a deep study of philosophy, but you will find it hard to find a statement I have made which clailms that I have.
stomping through the discussion
That is definitely unfair. I read all posts carefully before very politely putting in a post of my own. Are all other posters so afraid of finding that I might just be right that they would have the rules of discussion changed to prevent my views being expressed? Especially when they are present politely!
with the subtlety of several herds of elephants.
Well, my views certainly might count as the elephant in the room!
Explain exactly why it is stupidity. I think that is a fair challenge, don't you?
Exhibit A: This whole fucking thread. All 28 pages of the motherfucker, on which it was strenuously asserted to you by many many people many many times that plowing headlong into your ceaseless atheism evangelicalism is not only unwanted, but counter-productive.
You have bits of points, but they only tangentially relate to the topic that was nominally being discussed. Left to interact on what they were originally contemplating, there were signs of thoughtful consideration about the ways and means of forcing beliefs on others and the questionable motives behind them. Which, I think you might agree, could have been a step towards reason. Instead, you entirely fucked that up and drove the vast majority of the sheeple in defensive formation alpha (entrenching their identity), and summoned the harbinger of whining polarization (lil buddha¹).
Well, my views certainly might count as the elephant in the room!
No, SusanDoris, they absolutely do not. There are many of us on the Ship who are atheists, and we're not exactly in hiding. Not to mention that this is a terrible malapropism of the meaning behind the saying of 'the elephant in the room', as nobody struggling to ignore atheism because the thread wasn't even remotely about it.
Get off my side, you gibbering annoyance-spewing attention whore.
Well, my views certainly might count as the elephant in the room!
No, SusanDoris, they absolutely do not. There are many of us on the Ship who are atheists, and we're not exactly in hiding. Not to mention that this is a terrible malapropism of the meaning behind the saying of 'the elephant in the room', as nobody struggling to ignore atheism because the thread wasn't even remotely about it.
No, it was, as I am sure you must realise that I am well aware, about evangelism. Do you, then, as an atheist, think it is a good thing that people with one sort of faith belief or (none, should be persuaded, indoctrinated, or whatever word you choose, to believ in the, I assume presumed objective,) truth of the totally unevidenced faith belief of another, in this case, Christianity?
You seem to have no qualms about trying to persuade people of the merits of your beliefs.
I agree with this. When debating turns into persuading it’s evangelism. You aren’t just putting your point of view, you are trying to persuade others to join you.
Let them have their beliefs as they let you have yours @SusanDoris.
I have been reading the ‘evangelism’ thread but I havn’t joined in. I dislike evangelism - the more people try to persuade me one way the more I pull the other.
Evangelical Atheists cause me to look and see what’s good in my faith (and that takes some doing as I’m teetering on leaving Church altogether).
You seem to have no qualms about trying to persuade people of the merits of your beliefs.
I am well aware that on this forum posters are adult and able to make up their own minds. I am not trying any persuading - if you think that is so, I would be interested to see what words you think I use to do this.
Everything I believ as fact is backed up by objective evidence. Some of this is incomplete of course, but if it is overturned, then the new, improved evidence will take the place of the former. I will always acknowledg if anything I believe is fact is shown to be incorrect.
There are many questions which remain as don't know yets, or unknowns of course. For none of them is a god/spirit/etc of the gaps required.
I hope that what I say should stand on its own, independent, merits. It does not need me to believe it.
Nothing I believe requires 100% faith.
Sigh. But you are ignorant about science. You know very little about how it works. You admit to knowing nothing of the philosophy of science.
So this claim that everything you state is backed up by objective facts is nonsense. You don't know what the "objective facts" are. You don't understand how they are generated. You refuse to educate yourself about the context of scientific discovery.
So you have no credibility even in your own terms. You are like someone who knows a few terms used in cricket and seeks to apply them to baseball.
You don't know what you are talking about. Even if you did, it is still irrelevant to this discussion. And most other discussions.
I think using my iPad requires 100% faith - I know nothing about how it works!
Agreed - but we both know there is, somewhere on the internet or on record, all the information necessary to provide the explanation! As a matter of fact, I have lost my, very simple!, mobile phone. My son knows its number and phoned it, but since it is turned off, I don't think that will help!
Sigh. But you are ignorant about science. You know very little about how it works.
And on the basis of posts on a message board, for a period of a few years out of a long life, you presume to know all about what I know and understand about science and how it works? That is arrogant and, edited to add, patronising.
You admit to knowing nothing of the philosophy of science.
That is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I admit that I have not made a deep study of philosophy, but I have read and learned much.
So this claim that everything you state is backed up by objective facts is nonsense.
Okay – find one thing you think I believe is fact that you know is not.
You don't know what the "objective facts" are.
But I do know how to find them if that is what I choose to do.
You don't understand how they are generated.
See previous comment.
You refuse to educate yourself about the context of scientific discovery.
Refuse? That is incorrect. I challenge you to try to do that with the same problems I face. I have actually just finished reading a book – in braille – called ‘The Weather Experience’ by Peter Moor. It was an extremely interesting one, and I have learnt a lot I did not know.
So you have no credibility even in your own terms.
In your own , not very humble, opinion, eh?!!
You are like someone who knows a few terms used in cricket and seeks to apply them to baseball.
You don't know what you are talking about. Even if you did, it is still irrelevant to this discussion. And most other discussions.
On that last point, I definitely disagree. Just because some people do not like having their views challenged, it does not mean that the challenging views are irrelevant. On the contrary, I, naturally, think they are certainly relevant in the evangelism topic. Otherwise, the discussion title should have included something like: This topic is only for those who believe that their faith belief should be taught to all those without it.
There are people here with far more training and experience in science than you. There are people here with far more training and experience in philosophy than you.
And yet you still think you can make bullshit statements and think that they are "challenging". They're not.
Sigh. But you are ignorant about science. You know very little about how it works.
And on the basis of posts on a message board, for a period of a few years out of a long life, you presume to know all about what I know and understand about science and how it works?
Perhaps we can make a more accurate version of what mr cheesy said.
Based on a few years worth of posts you appear to be ignorant of science and know very little about how it works. If your understanding and knowledge is greater then you have failed to convey that through what you've posted.
You admit to knowing nothing of the philosophy of science.
That is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I admit that I have not made a deep study of philosophy, but I have read and learned much.
On the evangelisation thread you said you needed to read up on Popper. Karl f***ing Popper, one of the best known philosophers of science. You didn't even seem to know the overly simplified lady-bird book version, that a scientific theory can't be proved (something people before him had demonstrated) to be true but only disproved and therefore scientific theories should be formulated in a manner such that there are experiments which could disprove them (if formulated in a manner that there's no chance of disproving then it's not classed as science). Of course, Popper went to far greater depth than the popular expressions of his philosophies ... the most significant the recognition that a statement "this has been disproved" is something that (if it's science) is open to being disproved, therefore you can't say an observation or theory is objectively true, nor can you say it's objectively false. Popper described science as building on a swamp, science drives piles into the swamp which never reach the solid ground of objective truth, but are driven deep enough that we can productively pursue science and technology with sufficient stability.
You don't know what the "objective facts" are.
But I do know how to find them if that is what I choose to do.
You don't understand how they are generated.
See previous comment.
You refuse to educate yourself about the context of scientific discovery.
See above. If you had a basic understanding of the philosophy of science you would recognise that there are no "objective facts", let alone expect there's a method to generate them. Science is a brilliant method of identifying what we don't know, we sometimes push things far enough that we can generate bodies of data and theories that are almost certain to be largely correct. But, objective facts are beyond us. Asserting something to be objectively true is the role of metaphysics, philosophy and religion, not science.
Unfortunately trying to get Susan to understand that objective/subjective itself is a concept of philosophy is a thankless task.
She really seems to believe that all things can be divided into proven, scientific, objective facts on one side and unproven, unscientific, subjective feelings on the other.
I've scare experienced anyone with such a weak grasp of how science works. Or philosophy.
And surely nobody in the history of the universe has been so pig-headed to believe that their warped understanding of these terms and practices explains all things. It's so stupid as to be laughable.
Sigh. But you are ignorant about science. You know very little about how it works.
And on the basis of posts on a message board, for a period of a few years out of a long life, you presume to know all about what I know and understand about science and how it works?
Perhaps we can make a more accurate version of what mr cheesy said.
Based on a few years worth of posts you appear to be ignorant of science and know very little about how it works. If your understanding and knowledge is greater then you have failed to convey that through what you've posted.
You admit to knowing nothing of the philosophy of science.
That is an incorrect interpretation of what I said. I admit that I have not made a deep study of philosophy, but I have read and learned much.
On the evangelisation thread you said you needed to read up on Popper. Karl f***ing Popper, one of the best known philosophers of science.
I am sure you will be pleased to know that I certainly did know that he is one of the best-known philosophers of science and I have seen and heard much about him. You will note that I did not say I had never heard of him. I said that I needed to read up - and should have added the word again.
You didn't even seem to know the overly simplified lady-bird book version, that a scientific theory can't be prove(/quote]
U*sigh* Please see note at end of this post.
but are driven deep enough that we can productively pursue science and technology with sufficient stability.
~And do you really think you are telling me something here that I don't know?
And, on reflection, I suppose you do! Best of luck!
Asserting something to be objectively true is the role of metaphysics, philosophy and religion, not science.
Cite where I have done exactly that: assert that something is objectively true.
]
Throughout the whole of this post, you ddemonstrate that you have failed to notice the many, many times I have pointed out that I know ful well that science, scientists and the scientific method make no claims, ever, to be 100% sure.
Unfortunately trying to get Susan to understand that objective/subjective itself is a concept of philosophy is a thankless task.
She really seems to believe that all things can be divided into proven, scientific, objective facts on one side and unproven, unscientific, subjective feelings on the other.
Please take careful note of the last part of my post to Alan Cresswell. Perhaps it would be a good idea to read it two or three times.
I must, it seems, also point out that the 'facts' which are not 1(00% of course) proved or not, remain as 'don't knows', or unknowns'. I have written that many many times. I cannot of course stop you believing that I don't know this.
I've scare experienced anyone with such a weak grasp of how science works. Or philosophy.
And surely nobody in the history of the universe has been so pig-headed to believe that their warped understanding of these terms and practices explains all things. It's so stupid as to be laughable.
I agree, it would be if that statement was actually true about me!!!
Hi SusanDoris. For what it's worth, I have been observing you've been in general more discerning in your posts since your last hell call, trying to stick more to the topic, and I appreciate this. In this particular case, you started off with a relevant post that gave rise to interesting conversation, but then later you went off topic. To be fair, you are certainly not the only person who posts off-topic, but often off-topic posts pass by smoothly, because there might be just one random one, not several posts in a row, and not a topic that the person has repeated many times in the past.
I don't know if you are aware, but the evangelism thread was an off-shoot from another thread, about a specific case of a missionary being killed. People were questioning in this thread whether such evangelism is necessarily evil. The question (as I understood it) boiled down to: if a person is genuinely convinced that they are spreading life-saving news, to prevent people burning in hell for eternity, are they not doing the right thing by their own understanding? Of course, you can say 'But they're wrong!' but the question is not so much whether they are right or wrong, but about them acting from their own understanding, according to their conscience.
So your post comparing evangelists and atheists was actually really useful in that it gave rise to discussion about other forms of 'evangelism' - such as 'evangelical atheism' (which you weren't aware was a term atheists used, but when presented with information to the contrary, you acknowledged that maybe it was a broader term now). So that can lead to all sorts of exploration of the idea - are there some sorts of examples of 'evangelism' that might be good, or is it always wrong? Vegans, for instance, can be very evangelical. And anti-vaxxers, and pro-vaxxers - both sides think they are saving lives here, and both think it's important to spread what they see as truth. And people can be very evangelical about their political viewpoint - trying to persuade others to vote as they do. They are convinced that proselytizing is a positive thing to help save the country, but not everyone may agree. And then there is the question of how it should be done - if you have important news to spread, is there a right and wrong way of doing it?
So the 'Yeah, but the info they're spreading is wrong' argument isn't really so relevant here. We all know that not everyone believes in God. In the same way that we know that some people vote Labour and some people vote Conservative, but in a discussion on whether and how people should proselytize their political views, it would be off-topic if someone piped up with 'Proselytizing left wing views is bad because they are wrong!' Debating whether left or right wing politics are wrong would be a completely different topic.
thank you for your post. I have glanced at it quickly but am in the middle of another at the moment (which will appear later!) so will respond in detail later. May I just mention that my later posts were in response to those directed at me rather than at the topic, and, yes, I knew it came from another subject which I read through from start to finish yesterday. Back later.
In quite a few of the above posts, it has been said that I am:
-ignorant of science,
-have no understanding of science,
-ignorant of how things are generated, -
of stupidity,
-of a refusal to learn, -
of scientism – a term I avoid because of its multiple definitions,
-of stating that science proves things, -
of knowing nothing of the philosophy of science, -
of ploughing through the purg thread,-
of trying to persuade people to my way of thinking, -
-of saying that I knew nothing of Carl Popper,
-of knowing nothing of scientific discovery, -
-of asserting that things are objective facts,
Then there is the more serious falsehood:
So this claim that everything you state is backed up by objective
facts is nonsense
That is totally false, I did not use the word state, I said believe so my words were misquoted, creating an entirely different meaning.
If those responsible for the above can sayexactly why they think they are right, by quoting me exactly and then showing exactly what they know to be the correct version, with an exact correction, I will of course have no hesitation in apologising profusely and deferring to their superior knowledge.
I think that is fair and reasonable, although others may not! Vague, generalised corrections won’t do; precision and exact words are needed.
Look, if a bunch of generally well-mannered (okay, this is the Ship...) and usually forgiving folk are calling you a dick, then to double down and demand chapter and verse proving that you were indeed a dick - then you've just proved you were a dick, and you're still being one.
This isn't a court of law, and neither is it a science lab. This is a community, and right now they're cross with you. Demanding evidence and affidavits is just going to make them crosser.
Hi SusanDoris. For what it's worth, I have been observing you've been in general more discerning in your posts since your last hell call, trying to stick more to the topic, and I appreciate this. In this particular case, you started off with a relevant post that gave rise to interesting conversation, but then later you went off topic.
If you can quote the words which demonstrated that it was I who went off topic, then I will certainly apologise, as that was the last thing on my mind. I joined in politely and moderately with an interesting topic.
To be fair, you are certainly not the only person who posts off-topic, but often off-topic posts pass by smoothly, because there might be just one random one, not several posts in a row,
Perhaps I should have ignored the posts that aimed at my words.
and not a topic that the person has repeated many times in the past.
I don't know if you are aware, but the evangelism thread was an off-shoot from another thread, about a specific case of a missionary being killed.
Yes, I had seen this referred to elsewhere too but there are so many grey areas in such things, that I did not attempt to join that.
People were questioning in this thread whether such evangelism is necessarily evil. The question (as I understood it) boiled down to: if a person is genuinely convinced that they are spreading life-saving news, to prevent people burning in hell for eternity, are they not doing the right thing by their own understanding? Of course, you can say 'But they're wrong!' but the question is not so much whether they are right or wrong, but about them acting from their own understanding, according to their conscience.
An interesting – and probably ever-enduring – subject in human life.
So your post comparing evangelists and atheists was actually really useful in that it gave rise to discussion about other forms of 'evangelism' - such as 'evangelical atheism' (which you weren't aware was a term atheists used, but when presented with information to the contrary, you acknowledged that maybe it was a broader term now). So that can lead to all sorts of exploration of the idea - are there some sorts of examples of 'evangelism' that might be good, or is it always wrong?
I realise I did create a slight ambiguity there, because of course I had heard the term evangelistic atheist, so apologies there.Vegans, for instance, can be very evangelical. And anti-vaxxers, and pro-vaxxers - both sides think they are saving lives here, and both think it's important to spread what they see as truth. And people can be very evangelical about their political viewpoint - trying to persuade others to vote as they do. They are convinced that proselytizing is a positive thing to help save the country, but not everyone may agree. And then there is the question of how it should be done - if you have important news to spread, is there a right and wrong way of doing it?
So the 'Yeah, but the info they're spreading is wrong' argument isn't really so relevant here. We all know that not everyone believes in God. In the same way that we know that some people vote Labour and some people vote Conservative, but in a discussion on whether and how people should proselytize their political views, it would be off-topic if someone piped up with 'Proselytizing left wing views is bad because they are wrong!' Debating whether left or right wing politics are wrong would be a completely different topic.[/quote]
One reason whey I hardly ever join in poligical topics. Well, as I say, I hope ou and others realise that I was treading carefully as it was such an interesting topic and I will be interested to hear whether you think it was my post that sentan off-topic exchange, or one of those of my accusers. Thank you.
Look, if a bunch of generally well-mannered (okay, this is the Ship...) and usually forgiving folk are calling you a dick, then to double down and demand chapter and verse proving that you were indeed a dick - then you've just proved you were a dick, and you're still being one.
This isn't a court of law, and neither is it a science lab. This is a community, and right now they're cross with you. Demanding evidence and affidavits is just going to make them crosser.
Okay, I have looked back at my first post in the thread. The next one, directly after mine, was from mr cheesy and if you think that was a polite, interested response to a polite, interested post of mine, then I wonder why?
Perhaps I should simply have ignored it, but as one of the mainthings about forums is communication, I responded.
By the way, I never 'demand' and you will not find that in my previous post; in fact I left the
ending in the air deliberately.
etaSorry - couldn't check in time, will write another.
It kept repeating the same letter instead of echoing character typed.
right, I intended to make ending more vague than I did, Obviously, I would be interested in the answers, but everyone's equally entitled to respond or ignore so I'll just watch this space.
By the way, I'm sorry if Fineline's post and my reply got posted to - something to do with the draft not being deleted maybe.
Hi Susan Doris. Thanks for your reply. I did explain to you in detail in my post what the topic was and how the things you were talking about were not furthering this discussion, but were off topic. And yes, as I said, you weren't the only one off-topic. Yes, people were responding to you, and you were responding back. But you don't have to respond to all of them. If you respond to several people, in several consecutive posts, addressing small side-issues, and returning continuously to your own favourite topic, rather than move the conversation forward, this is going to annoy people, and derail the thread.
Thing is, human communication isn't a precise science that can be measured. It involves all kinds of little things, contextual things, observing people's reactions and the way the conversation is going, reading between the lines, and adapting to each individual situation. There are guidelines, but not hard and fast rules, because the need to adapt to context is key. Something may be the right thing to say in one situation and the wrong thing to say in another situation and these two situations may differ only by one small thing. Lots of people pick this up automatically, and easily adapt, but not everyone does, and some are better at it than others. So people are explaining to you things from a bigger perspective - as these things can't be measured like a mathematical equation. And communication isn't just about whether something is logical, but it's about how people feel about you, and that is often based on being able to respond to social cues, and say things that make you come across as friendly, and letting people know you are listening and respecting them. As has been discussed before, the way you express yourself can come across like you are being patronising, seeing yourself as more enlightened than others, and this rubs people up the wrong way.
From a hosting point of view (and I'm saying this as a Shipmate, not in my Host role - this is Hell, where I'm not a Host, and from a Purgatory Host perspective, I don't need to host you there while you're discussing it here in Hell, because here is a place where it can be discussed), if you had continued in the same vein, a Host post would have been created to request a return to topic. Because sticking to the point and not going off-topic is a Purgatory guideline. It wouldn't have been a case of pinpointing someone to blame, as you seem to suggest when you say 'I will be interested to hear whether you think it was my post that sent an off-topic exchange, or one of those of my accusers.' It's not about identifying what/who sent a topic off the rails, but simply stopping it continuing in that direction - we're not looking for people to blame, but simply wanting to enable the thread to run smoothly.
I am discussing it here in Hell, not to scold you, but because you genuinely seem oblivious to how and why you are annoying people, and I thought I could informally help explain it. You still don't seem to get it, so I'm not sure I can really say much more. I do realise you are trying to post in a way that won't annoy people or go against a guideline. And I do sympathise, because etiquette isn't clearcut. I see this whenever you start a post with 'I hope it's okay to say this and that I won't make people angry' - this shows that you do still feel in the dark as to exactly what it is that is annoying people and how to avoid it. And I feel a bit stumped trying to explain it, as I know a lot of it does rely on social understanding and adaptation, reading a variety of threads, and getting a sense of how the forums work in general, and being aware of how your words can come across, and successfully communicating understanding and respect of others. And also constantly thinking about how what you post relates to the OP, and how you can indicate this. These are things I struggle with myself, and I know there is no simple magic wand answer to fix it and make all your posts relevant and welcome. It's hard work if it doesn't come naturally. Maybe it would help just to accept when several people are expressing annoyance, even though you don't understand why, and instead make a new thread to discuss whatever element it is that you want to discuss.
FWIW, I wish SusanDoris would just accept the (IMHO) incontrovertible fact that, on this side of Death, and in this Vale of Tears, we simply do not KNOW what, if anything, awaits us on t'other side.
Comments
Oh, c'mon, that's in Heaven, and the purpose is to have a friendly chat about books. She's read the book and has answered the questions with her own thoughts, as we all do. My contributions to such threads tend to be loooooong too. Seems a bit mean to mock a person's every attempt to contribute to the Ship - especially when it was on this Hell thread that people were suggesting she post in some other threads as well as Purg.
All eleventeen of them?
I heard tell of the unwise evangelical mission to thoughtless and unhelpful territory, so I went to Purgatory to read your posts for myself. There was nothing Purgatorial that I could add, so I just waited for posts on this thread instead.
Say rather tunnel vision. I don't think Susan Doris is stupid. But she certainly is a one-note opera.
Though (and because I know this is Hell) what could have been an interesting discussion (especially if started on a shiny new thread rather than derail the evangelisation one) was still born through the evangelistic fervour of someone largely ignorant of the subject (if someone truly believes that science is the only means of determining truth, and that science proves there's no god, then it's not unreasonable to expect at least a passing knowledge of philosophy of science) stomping through the discussion with the subtlety of several herds of elephants.
People who succumb to scientism reject the term, I think, because they reject the idea that there is anything wrong or illogical or faith-based with what essentially equates to hard-core logical positivism. The scientifically discoverable/describable IS the full extent of the real world and vice-versa. They see nothing wrong with this reductionism, and therefore need no word, let alone a pejorative word, to describe their worldview.
A fine rhetorical if not postmodern response. But mine was an open question. I liked DoubleThink's (sorry for case errors in memory there) response. Although I do think that morality has a biological basis in every regard including in analytical abstractions like utilitarianism and deontology. I can't think of an exception. Morality is amenable to science. what isn't? To the systematic improvement of knowledge. Science can judge it.
And that experiment will never, ever happen.
No answer needed, I'm simply expressing my increasing mystification at the strangeness of human interaction.
Then that person would need first to define very cleerly the word truth. As far as I know, no scientist has done that, and I certainly have never said such a thing. I happily acknowledge that I have not made a deep study of philosophy, but you will find it hard to find a statement I have made which clailms that I have. That is definitely unfair. I read all posts carefully before very politely putting in a post of my own. Are all other posters so afraid of finding that I might just be right that they would have the rules of discussion changed to prevent my views being expressed? Especially when they are present politely! Well, my views certainly might count as the elephant in the room!
You have bits of points, but they only tangentially relate to the topic that was nominally being discussed. Left to interact on what they were originally contemplating, there were signs of thoughtful consideration about the ways and means of forcing beliefs on others and the questionable motives behind them. Which, I think you might agree, could have been a step towards reason. Instead, you entirely fucked that up and drove the vast majority of the sheeple in defensive formation alpha (entrenching their identity), and summoned the harbinger of whining polarization (lil buddha¹).
The definition of stupid is as follow:
Your posting on the recent Evangelicalism thread in Purgatory qualifies overwhelming.
Q.E.D.
¹ Whom I agree with on virtually every topic, technically.
No, SusanDoris, they absolutely do not. There are many of us on the Ship who are atheists, and we're not exactly in hiding. Not to mention that this is a terrible malapropism of the meaning behind the saying of 'the elephant in the room', as nobody struggling to ignore atheism because the thread wasn't even remotely about it.
Get off my side, you gibbering annoyance-spewing attention whore.
I agree with this. When debating turns into persuading it’s evangelism. You aren’t just putting your point of view, you are trying to persuade others to join you.
Let them have their beliefs as they let you have yours @SusanDoris.
I have been reading the ‘evangelism’ thread but I havn’t joined in. I dislike evangelism - the more people try to persuade me one way the more I pull the other.
Evangelical Atheists cause me to look and see what’s good in my faith (and that takes some doing as I’m teetering on leaving Church altogether).
Everything I believ as fact is backed up by objective evidence. Some of this is incomplete of course, but if it is overturned, then the new, improved evidence will take the place of the former. I will always acknowledg if anything I believe is fact is shown to be incorrect.
There are many questions which remain as don't know yets, or unknowns of course. For none of them is a god/spirit/etc of the gaps required.
I hope that what I say should stand on its own, independent, merits. It does not need me to believe it.
Nothing I believe requires 100% faith.
I
So this claim that everything you state is backed up by objective facts is nonsense. You don't know what the "objective facts" are. You don't understand how they are generated. You refuse to educate yourself about the context of scientific discovery.
So you have no credibility even in your own terms. You are like someone who knows a few terms used in cricket and seeks to apply them to baseball.
You don't know what you are talking about. Even if you did, it is still irrelevant to this discussion. And most other discussions.
It is simply saying that you are full of shite. And the tragedy is that you are so ignorant that you don't even know what you don't know.
And yet you still think you can make bullshit statements and think that they are "challenging". They're not.
They are like nails scratching down a blackboard.
But you can't seriously imagine that this is a useful fact when the discussion is about complex human interactions.
And yet, somehow, you imagine that your "fact" is applicable to every discussion.
And then when challenged you go all pantomime "help, help, I'm being oppressed."
Can't you grow up a little? I mean, what is the actual purpose of you saying a thousand variations of the same irrelevant thing?
Have you tried some other pointless activity that doesn't annoy people?
Based on a few years worth of posts you appear to be ignorant of science and know very little about how it works. If your understanding and knowledge is greater then you have failed to convey that through what you've posted.
On the evangelisation thread you said you needed to read up on Popper. Karl f***ing Popper, one of the best known philosophers of science. You didn't even seem to know the overly simplified lady-bird book version, that a scientific theory can't be proved (something people before him had demonstrated) to be true but only disproved and therefore scientific theories should be formulated in a manner such that there are experiments which could disprove them (if formulated in a manner that there's no chance of disproving then it's not classed as science). Of course, Popper went to far greater depth than the popular expressions of his philosophies ... the most significant the recognition that a statement "this has been disproved" is something that (if it's science) is open to being disproved, therefore you can't say an observation or theory is objectively true, nor can you say it's objectively false. Popper described science as building on a swamp, science drives piles into the swamp which never reach the solid ground of objective truth, but are driven deep enough that we can productively pursue science and technology with sufficient stability.
See above. If you had a basic understanding of the philosophy of science you would recognise that there are no "objective facts", let alone expect there's a method to generate them. Science is a brilliant method of identifying what we don't know, we sometimes push things far enough that we can generate bodies of data and theories that are almost certain to be largely correct. But, objective facts are beyond us. Asserting something to be objectively true is the role of metaphysics, philosophy and religion, not science.
Unfortunately trying to get Susan to understand that objective/subjective itself is a concept of philosophy is a thankless task.
She really seems to believe that all things can be divided into proven, scientific, objective facts on one side and unproven, unscientific, subjective feelings on the other.
I've scare experienced anyone with such a weak grasp of how science works. Or philosophy.
And surely nobody in the history of the universe has been so pig-headed to believe that their warped understanding of these terms and practices explains all things. It's so stupid as to be laughable.
And, on reflection, I suppose you do! Best of luck! Cite where I have done exactly that: assert that something is objectively true.
]
Throughout the whole of this post, you ddemonstrate that you have failed to notice the many, many times I have pointed out that I know ful well that science, scientists and the scientific method make no claims, ever, to be 100% sure.
I must, it seems, also point out that the 'facts' which are not 1(00% of course) proved or not, remain as 'don't knows', or unknowns'. I have written that many many times. I cannot of course stop you believing that I don't know this. I agree, it would be if that statement was actually true about me!!!
I don't know if you are aware, but the evangelism thread was an off-shoot from another thread, about a specific case of a missionary being killed. People were questioning in this thread whether such evangelism is necessarily evil. The question (as I understood it) boiled down to: if a person is genuinely convinced that they are spreading life-saving news, to prevent people burning in hell for eternity, are they not doing the right thing by their own understanding? Of course, you can say 'But they're wrong!' but the question is not so much whether they are right or wrong, but about them acting from their own understanding, according to their conscience.
So your post comparing evangelists and atheists was actually really useful in that it gave rise to discussion about other forms of 'evangelism' - such as 'evangelical atheism' (which you weren't aware was a term atheists used, but when presented with information to the contrary, you acknowledged that maybe it was a broader term now). So that can lead to all sorts of exploration of the idea - are there some sorts of examples of 'evangelism' that might be good, or is it always wrong? Vegans, for instance, can be very evangelical. And anti-vaxxers, and pro-vaxxers - both sides think they are saving lives here, and both think it's important to spread what they see as truth. And people can be very evangelical about their political viewpoint - trying to persuade others to vote as they do. They are convinced that proselytizing is a positive thing to help save the country, but not everyone may agree. And then there is the question of how it should be done - if you have important news to spread, is there a right and wrong way of doing it?
So the 'Yeah, but the info they're spreading is wrong' argument isn't really so relevant here. We all know that not everyone believes in God. In the same way that we know that some people vote Labour and some people vote Conservative, but in a discussion on whether and how people should proselytize their political views, it would be off-topic if someone piped up with 'Proselytizing left wing views is bad because they are wrong!' Debating whether left or right wing politics are wrong would be a completely different topic.
thank you for your post. I have glanced at it quickly but am in the middle of another at the moment (which will appear later!) so will respond in detail later. May I just mention that my later posts were in response to those directed at me rather than at the topic, and, yes, I knew it came from another subject which I read through from start to finish yesterday. Back later.
-ignorant of science,
-have no understanding of science,
-ignorant of how things are generated, -
of stupidity,
-of a refusal to learn, -
of scientism – a term I avoid because of its multiple definitions,
-of stating that science proves things, -
of knowing nothing of the philosophy of science, -
of ploughing through the purg thread,-
of trying to persuade people to my way of thinking, -
-of saying that I knew nothing of Carl Popper,
-of knowing nothing of scientific discovery, -
-of asserting that things are objective facts,
Then there is the more serious falsehood: That is totally false, I did not use the word state, I said believe so my words were misquoted, creating an entirely different meaning.
If those responsible for the above can sayexactly why they think they are right, by quoting me exactly and then showing exactly what they know to be the correct version, with an exact correction, I will of course have no hesitation in apologising profusely and deferring to their superior knowledge.
I think that is fair and reasonable, although others may not! Vague, generalised corrections won’t do; precision and exact words are needed.
Look, if a bunch of generally well-mannered (okay, this is the Ship...) and usually forgiving folk are calling you a dick, then to double down and demand chapter and verse proving that you were indeed a dick - then you've just proved you were a dick, and you're still being one.
This isn't a court of law, and neither is it a science lab. This is a community, and right now they're cross with you. Demanding evidence and affidavits is just going to make them crosser.
So the 'Yeah, but the info they're spreading is wrong' argument isn't really so relevant here. We all know that not everyone believes in God. In the same way that we know that some people vote Labour and some people vote Conservative, but in a discussion on whether and how people should proselytize their political views, it would be off-topic if someone piped up with 'Proselytizing left wing views is bad because they are wrong!' Debating whether left or right wing politics are wrong would be a completely different topic.[/quote]
One reason whey I hardly ever join in poligical topics. Well, as I say, I hope ou and others realise that I was treading carefully as it was such an interesting topic and I will be interested to hear whether you think it was my post that sentan off-topic exchange, or one of those of my accusers. Thank you.
Okay, I have looked back at my first post in the thread. The next one, directly after mine, was from mr cheesy and if you think that was a polite, interested response to a polite, interested post of mine, then I wonder why?
Perhaps I should simply have ignored it, but as one of the mainthings about forums is communication, I responded.
By the way, I never 'demand' and you will not find that in my previous post; in fact I left the
ending in the air deliberately.
etaSorry - couldn't check in time, will write another.
right, I intended to make ending more vague than I did, Obviously, I would be interested in the answers, but everyone's equally entitled to respond or ignore so I'll just watch this space.
By the way, I'm sorry if Fineline's post and my reply got posted to - something to do with the draft not being deleted maybe.
Thing is, human communication isn't a precise science that can be measured. It involves all kinds of little things, contextual things, observing people's reactions and the way the conversation is going, reading between the lines, and adapting to each individual situation. There are guidelines, but not hard and fast rules, because the need to adapt to context is key. Something may be the right thing to say in one situation and the wrong thing to say in another situation and these two situations may differ only by one small thing. Lots of people pick this up automatically, and easily adapt, but not everyone does, and some are better at it than others. So people are explaining to you things from a bigger perspective - as these things can't be measured like a mathematical equation. And communication isn't just about whether something is logical, but it's about how people feel about you, and that is often based on being able to respond to social cues, and say things that make you come across as friendly, and letting people know you are listening and respecting them. As has been discussed before, the way you express yourself can come across like you are being patronising, seeing yourself as more enlightened than others, and this rubs people up the wrong way.
From a hosting point of view (and I'm saying this as a Shipmate, not in my Host role - this is Hell, where I'm not a Host, and from a Purgatory Host perspective, I don't need to host you there while you're discussing it here in Hell, because here is a place where it can be discussed), if you had continued in the same vein, a Host post would have been created to request a return to topic. Because sticking to the point and not going off-topic is a Purgatory guideline. It wouldn't have been a case of pinpointing someone to blame, as you seem to suggest when you say 'I will be interested to hear whether you think it was my post that sent an off-topic exchange, or one of those of my accusers.' It's not about identifying what/who sent a topic off the rails, but simply stopping it continuing in that direction - we're not looking for people to blame, but simply wanting to enable the thread to run smoothly.
I am discussing it here in Hell, not to scold you, but because you genuinely seem oblivious to how and why you are annoying people, and I thought I could informally help explain it. You still don't seem to get it, so I'm not sure I can really say much more. I do realise you are trying to post in a way that won't annoy people or go against a guideline. And I do sympathise, because etiquette isn't clearcut. I see this whenever you start a post with 'I hope it's okay to say this and that I won't make people angry' - this shows that you do still feel in the dark as to exactly what it is that is annoying people and how to avoid it. And I feel a bit stumped trying to explain it, as I know a lot of it does rely on social understanding and adaptation, reading a variety of threads, and getting a sense of how the forums work in general, and being aware of how your words can come across, and successfully communicating understanding and respect of others. And also constantly thinking about how what you post relates to the OP, and how you can indicate this. These are things I struggle with myself, and I know there is no simple magic wand answer to fix it and make all your posts relevant and welcome. It's hard work if it doesn't come naturally. Maybe it would help just to accept when several people are expressing annoyance, even though you don't understand why, and instead make a new thread to discuss whatever element it is that you want to discuss.
FAITH, of course, is a different ball game.
Many a true word is spoken in jest. Best of luck trying to tell SusanDoris something she doesn't know. Ain't gon' happen.