Attitude of certain online Christians and Science... (resolved)

[brinny]

True, I did join this site purely to discuss the topic of the OP because I felt that this forum was a better place to discuss the topic without having to resort of anti-theistic and anti-atheist rants as are prone on other forums I've lurked on.
If that means that you will think of me as a troll, well, that's your prerogative.

i never mentioned troll.

Did i?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i never mentioned troll.

Did i?

Another poster thinly accused me of being the well-known anti-theist troll, Consol, earlier. You agreed with the assumption to check my IP address. Ergo, you agreed with the claim of be being a troll.

 

[brinny]

Would you prefer me to name names, to make it more personal?
Or would you prefer me to change the thread to include all Christians in a horribly untrue blanket statement?

Do as you wish.

It's already insulting and appears to be a "dig" at some who you started a thread to "target".

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Do as you wish.

It's already insulting and appears to be a "dig" at some who you started a thread to "target".

I did not start the thread with the intention of discussing the individuals. I intended to discuss the moral conundrum their beliefs create.
If you believe the thread to be insulting, then maybe you should mull over the reason as to why you find it insulting.

 

[brinny]

Another poster thinly accused me of being the well-known anti-theist troll, Consol, earlier. You agreed with the assumption to check my IP address. Ergo, you agreed with the claim of be being a troll.

Read your OP again.

Do YOU see ANYTHING in there that is a targeted and belittling insult, targeting anyone?

From my reading it, it appears you joined CF right from the gitgo to "target" very insultingly "CERTAIN" people.

Seriously.

 

[whois]

I fail to see how a person being on a Christian forum means that said person will act in arrogant manner.
And I do stay away from the Christian-only subforums. I am referring to those who are on the forums that cater to both believers and nonbelievers.

i've often tried to put god into perspective with science.
i've also found that some of these "god believers" have some interesting slants on it.
this is especially true in matters of philosophy.

arrogance comes with the Territory, a lot of scientist have it, it's called confirmation bias.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Read your OP again.

Do YOU see ANYTHING in there that is a targeted and belittling insult, targeting anyone?

From my reading it, it appears you joined CF right from the gitgo to "target" very insultingly "CERTAIN" people.

Seriously.

I see nothing wrong with my OP and several people have shown they agree with me.
As you said, it's your reading of it that makes it seem insulting.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

i've often tried to put god into perspective with science.
i've also found that some of these "god believers" have some interesting slants on it.
this is especially true in matters of philosophy.

arrogance comes with the Territory, a lot of scientist have it, it's called confirmation bias.

I can understand the believers who put their religion alongside science as an explanation of the world. Which is their prerogative to do so.
But we are not discussing matters of philosophy, or the attitude of scientists. I am hoping to have a discussion about the user on here who display an astounding level of arrogance with regards to science when they themselves are not schooled in the things they are arguing against.

 

[whois]

There are non believer sub forums?

creation & evolution is open to non believers.
of course the word creation implies a deity of sorts.
here again, i've seen some interesting slants in regards to the "god belief".

you must keep in mind that science is basically agnostic in relation to god.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

creation & evolution is open to non believers.
of course the word creation implies a deity of sorts.
here again, i've seen some interesting slants in regards to the "god belief".

you must keep in mind that science is basically agnostic in relation to god.

To be fair, the way you phrased it did make it sound like there were subforums open only to non-believers.

 

[brinny]

I see nothing wrong with my OP and several people have shown they agree with me.
As you said, it's your reading of it that makes it seem insulting.

even the title is:

Attitude of certain online Christians and Science...

yeah, it appears to be intentionally insulting with deliberate intent to do so.

You DO realize why it would be seen as "troll-ish", do you not?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

even the title is:

Attitude of certain online Christians and Science...

yeah, it appears to be intentionally insulting with deliberate intent to do so.

You DO realize why it would be seen as "troll-ish", do you not?

I do realise how it could come across as being 'troll-ish' to some people, and to be fair I did intend for it to have a longer title to make it sound less inflammatory to some people but... character limit.
But as you said, it 'appears'. It only appears to be insulting, but that does not mean it is.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Blind post for the OP:

You named Christians particularly, but since there are other groups who also have beliefs that are not compatible with scientific consensus, I think I can say my opinion too.

Problem with showing too much respect for scientific knowledge and experts while I hold non-scientific beliefs, is that if I go and admit that scientific experts know it all, and therefore I, a non-expert, should shut up, I'm practically admitting that I'm wrong with my beliefs.

I believe in supernatural, I'm a mystic, and I seek to experience supernatural directly. Now, so called scientific world view (I'm thinking of psychology here particularly, I have no degree in it, but I've read quite much of psychological stuff and it's the school that's mostly in conflict with my spiritual interests) doesn't include concept of supernatural, so there is a state of conflict for me between what I believe and what the mainstream scientific consensus tells me on what I should think about spiritual things that are happening in my life.

If I admit that those people know better than I do, I'm practically saying they're right and giving away my beliefs. And I can't do that, so in order to keep my world view, my religion and pretty much my life intact, I must give some doubts for the people who represent the scientific consensus as it is now.

Summa summarum: Disagreeing with scientific experts and probably even discrediting their way of seeing things is not separable from my world view or from my beliefs. It's rather part of the stuff I believe in and part of what I practise.

 

[whois]

I am hoping to have a discussion about the user on here who display an astounding level of arrogance with regards to science when they themselves are not schooled in the things they are arguing against.

if this poster hardly ever offers anything substantial, then put them on ignore.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

if this poster hardly ever offers anything substantial, then put them on ignore.

I had a typo in my post. 'User' is supposed to be 'users'. If that changes anything.

 

[brinny]

I do realise how it could come across as being 'troll-ish' to some people, and to be fair I did intend for it to have a longer title to make it sound less inflammatory to some people but... character limit.
But as you said, it 'appears'. It only appears to be insulting, but that does not mean it is.

You just posted that it sounds inflammatory to "some people"

And in your judgment, you left it be, so that "some people" would take it exactly that way?

Seriously?

Inflammatory = tending to arouse anger, hostility, etc.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If I admit that those people know better than I do, I'm practically saying they're right and giving away my beliefs. And I can't do that, so in order to keep my world view, my religion and pretty much my life intact, I must give some doubts for the people who represent the scientific consensus as it is now.

I'm responding to this particular point because it struck me the most. Now, I can perfectly understand the first parts of your post. Your religious beliefs kind of (and I'm not saying this to sound insulting. I just can't think of the right word to use in this case.) force you to follow that belief.
But then you go on to say that agreeing with science means that you're agreeing that you are in the wrong. I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You just posted that it sounds inflammatory to "some people"

And in your judgment, you left it be, so that "some people" would take it exactly that way?

Seriously?

Inflammatory = tending to arouse anger, hostility, etc.

One of the most horrible things of the internet is that no matter what you type, someone is bound to take offence from it.
And I left it like that because, as I said, I was bound by the character limit to write something shorter as a title.

If a person takes offence from it, it is not my fault. They found offence from it, so it's their problem.

 

[brinny]

One of the most horrible things of the internet is that no matter what you type, someone is bound to take offence from it.
And I left it like that because, as I said, I was bound by the character limit to write something shorter as a title.

If a person takes offence from it, it is not my fault. They found offence from it, so it's their problem.

Nah, you said yerself that you realize that it's gonna seem/be taken as inflammatory and chose to leave it like that.

Mission accomplished, eh?

 

[Jack of Spades]

I'm responding to this particular point because it struck me the most. Now, I can perfectly understand the first parts of your post. Your religious beliefs kind of (and I'm not saying this to sound insulting. I just can't think of the right word to use in this case.) force you to follow that belief.
But then you go on to say that agreeing with science means that you're agreeing that you are in the wrong. I'm afraid that I don't follow that logic.

Let's exarrogate a bit for demonstration:

I speak with God and discuss this with a shrink. The shrink tells me that I'm nuts, because hearing voices is sign of mental illness. Now, if I accept his expert opinion as superior to my own experience, I will have to agree that I'm nuts.

If I instead want to hold to my own interpration of my experience, that I was having a conversation with God, I have to dismiss the expert opinion. I am forced to make a choice between my experience and my interpretion of that experience vs expert opinion representing science.