Samantha

Unseen wrote:
One embodies an irrational belief with no need to support it in any way

I think there’s more to it than that.  Religious people usually have a strong “conscience” – whether that means humble self-guidance on one hand, or entitled, authoritarian meddling in the affairs of the rest of us, on the other extreme.  They have strongly h…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
You do bring up a great point, albeit in a different thread. What is meant by “good faith” and “bad faith?”. And how can you tell who has which?

That is a good point.  I think that good faith debate follows the charitable rules of fair play and doesn’t use underhand or aggressive tactics to try to win an argument…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
The goal should not be the absence of disagreement, but the presence of robust dialogue.

Likewise, it’s unproductive to seek to silence people we disagree with, in good faith.  It’s more productive to engage with them and debate.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
But I can attest today that a Jesus Fish on a work van or business sign doesn’t necessarily equal trust or quality. Televangelists and Noah’s Ark theme parks do not help matters either.

I think the “trust” thing works both ways with religious people.  I’m always suspiciously on the look out for tell-tale hypocrisy.

TheEncogitationer wrote:
Tribes and clans can be and were dismantled by travel and trade between different peoples.

Travel and trade come into the story.  But in the first place, if family, clan and tribe ties are dissolved to a great extent, then people become individuals.  And religion provided the trust necessary for individuals to trade, o…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
I think the writer is “tilting at windmills” and is arguing a point that does not need to be made. It could even be deemed a “strawman argument”. Her critique seems aimed more at an imagined “scientific arrogance” than at how science is genuinely practiced.

I think she’s right that science has had ideological…[Read more]

TheEncogitationer wrote:
* (That Christian Apologist Gish Galloping Galoot I once told you about one time even went so far as to claim that the entire Enlightenment experiment and even Atheism were the product of Christianity! That takes some real mental gymnastics!)

I’ve got a book that says just that, and they make a good point.  The Western…[Read more]

Reg the Fronkey Farmer wrote:
Scientific objectivity is a myth

I argue a more accurate view of science is that pure objectivity is impossible. Once you leave the myth of objectivity behind, though, the way forward is not simple. Instead of a belief in an all-knowing science, we are faced with the reality that humans are responsible for what is…

[Read more]

jakelafort wrote:
Opposition to Trump

By “opposition” I mean “telling the truth”, which is opposition to Trump by default.

jakelafort wrote:
Opposition to Trump by disseminating daily/weekly summaries without political spin or charged terms associated with either party.

You’re talking about the BBC.  I get multiple programmes of this nature every day.

Unseen wrote:
That’s right, Trump’s electoral strength—and his staying power—have been buoyed, above all, by Americans with authoritarian inclinations.

I’ve heard that before.  Also that Trump supporters tend to think in a very group-oriented way, they think that groups have to compete, and that their group has to win.

Simon Paynton wrote:
The pressure to heal bones is the same pressure that pushes us to attain benefits and achieve goals.

Or rather, it has the same evolutionary origin.