Jim Steinman wrote:God has left the building
Dorset Girl wrote:Keren asked me how / why people are on Earth today, and although I've previously planned that when she asked this, I'd give her the Christian view of things as well as Evolution, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. It's one thing lying about Father Christmas - that seems pretty harmless as in a few years she'll suddenly realise it's just a story. But it's another thing entirely to think that what I tell her now about religion will probably shape her views for her whole life, what a huge responsibility. She heard the Christmas story at playschool, so how she'll put those things together, I don't know... I'm expecting more questions soon!
Mr Blue Sky wrote:I also have to consider the fact that some people draw tremendous strength from their faith and I wouldn't want to deprive my kids of that if they actually believe in God. That was just never an option for me as I have always seen religious stories as the works of fiction they are and couldn't possibly believe them even if I wanted to.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:So you wouldn't have anything against, say, interested people attending psychic development circles? Or taking other such courses/classes which teach psychic or paranormal ability? Or people publicly demonstrating psychic abilities for zero charge?
[..]
Since you seem to accept that not everyone who calls themselves a 'psychic' is a deliberate fraud and that some of them genuinely believe they have these abilities...what would you like to see from these people (the ones who honestly think they have psychic ability.) Would you like to see more of them offer themselves to rigorous scientific testing, things like that?
Bee Gees Fan wrote:P.S. As an exercise, MC, perhaps we could recommend to one another some blogs/websites reflecting our points of view. I think everyone can benefit from giving at least a little exploration to thoughts and opinions that differ to ours. I could recommend to you what I think are some fair, objective and well-written paranormal/psychic blogs/sites and you could recommend to me some objective, fair and reasonable blogs/sites that take a more sceptical approach.
The one caveat for me is that I'd be prepared to look at sceptical blogs/websites that are polite and respectful towards believers in the paranormal and which don't, for the most part, take a rude and snarky tone. If there are any sceptical blogs/sites you know of that don't routinely insult believers in the paranormal, mock/belittle them, and that have a reasonably respectful/civil tone, then I am happy to take a look at what they have to say.[...]
Bee Gees Fan wrote:I can totally understand these issues that you have with the "old" religions, particularly the Abrahamic ones, which in my opinion are the faiths with the most unsavoury elements.
But what you don't seem to take into account is that none of the criticisms that you have apply to most of the modern neo-pagan religions that have evolved in the latter 20th century, Wicca being one of them.
So my question is, do you have "beef" with Wicca? And if you do, for what possible reason?
I honestly can't think of anything in Wicca that you could object to. (Morally, that is.) The problems/criticisms that you listed above don't exist in Wicca. To go through them one by one:
* Wiccans don't try to push their beliefs on others, they don't proselytise and the religion doesn't encourage its practitioners to do so. As Scott Cunningham wrote in his book about Wicca, "Wicca doesn't solicit because, unlike most Western religions, it doesn't claim to be the one true way to Deity."
* Wiccans don't perpetuate clearly debunked falsehoods as fact. Most of them believe in plenty of supernatural/paranormal things, and probably view them as "facts" personally, but they don't attempt to get their supernatural ideas taught as fact in classrooms, and don't try to badger other people to believe what they do.
* Wiccans don't push divisive rules based on sexual orientation, gender or race. The religion of Wicca is devoid of any prejudice against homosexuals and homosexuality, different races, and women - Wicca in fact gives equality to women, and the Goddess that Wiccans believe in is given equal status to the God. The fact that Wicca deems the feminine as equal to the masculine is a reason that it was so popular with some feminists in the 1970s.
So to be clear, Wicca the religion has no prejudice against people of any sexual orientation, race or gender. If there are any Wiccans who *do* have some of those prejudices, they haven't got them from their religion.
* Wicca is non-dogmatic.
* Wicca doesn't request money from its practitioners.
Wicca is a religion that is free from intolerance, prejudice and dogma. I can understand you being of the opinion that the mystical beliefs in Wicca are nonsense, but I can't think of anything that you could object to morally.
You once said something like (paraphrasing) that you could "accept the view that proponents of Wicca cause fewer problems them proponents of faiths like Christianity or Islam." But I don't think that goes far enough: as far as I can see, proponents of Wicca don't cause *any* problems.
I could be wrong here, and if so, my apologies, but the impression I get is that you know very little about Wicca and just assume that it's similar to the older, more intolerant religions. As someone who has some knowledge of Wicca, I can say (and have hopefully shown) that that is not the case at all.
I've seen too many people make negative judgments of Wicca (and other neo-pagan religions) based on false assumptions and lack of knowledge of the faith. And since I consider myself reasonably well-versed in such matters, I try to give a more accurate overview when I can.
Moon-Crane wrote:I think i'd be repeating earlier comments here if I go down this route, so, can I reverse the situation using another area of quackery that I dislike, has no scientific basis, and also contains people who honestly(?) believe they have an ability? Homeopathy.
There are homeopaths who believe they can do all sorts of crap - up to and including curing cancer, diabetes, arthritis, etc.
I'm sure you'd agree that such serious and unsubstantiated claims should be stopped when people are making money by preying on the fear, anxiety and desperation of ill people – potentially interfering in genuine medical care?
Now, if they make these claims but practice their 'beliefs' free of charge, should we then allow them to get on with it because they are making no profit from practising that belief and they appear to genuinely believe they can cure people of cancer with nothing more than water? I, personally, want proof of concept before allowing anything of the sort. Can you see where it becomes a grey area to accept any belief goes as long as it's free or conducted by people who genuinely believe they are able to do something?
Moon-Crane wrote:you've already said you dislike Myers because of what other people tell you, and quote mine, about him.
Moon-Crane wrote: How about Hemant Mehta's, the 'Friendly Atheist' website: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/
Moon-Crane wrote:Or the Center For Inquiry: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/ and their series of podcasts: Point Of Inquiry http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ that delve into many areas of skeptical thinking.
Moon-Crane wrote:For someone who belongs to a 'faith' which practices not pushing their belief on others, you're having a good run at repeating stuff over and over to get me to 'accept' it. j/k.
Moon-Crane wrote:Surely it should make no difference to you what i believe about Wicca, though.
Moon-Crane wrote:Ultimately, though, there is a belief in magic which i'm simply never going to accept without a whole bunch of tangible evidence. That's a major stumbling block to simply accepting a lifestyle without any questioning.
Moon-Crane wrote:jeez, there's so much there to dissect. I'll come back when i have time.
Moon-Crane wrote:I will say, though, that i personally enjoy Myers approach, so maybe we'll have to disagree about the style. He is an avowed activist atheist and radical feminist, so he's going to go on the offensive. Reading so many of his posts I take things in context and i can see when hyperbole is used to make a broader point.
Moon-Crane wrote:Your Greg Taylor is as much of an ass, in my opinion, for so many reasons - not least of which is the bizarre fascination with Dan Brown's crappy nonsense, to the extent of publishing books trying to predict what Brown is going to feature in his next releases. I can't imagine a more pointless exercise in life.
Moon-Crane wrote:How did Myers have any part in Sheldrake's/Hancock's removal from the TED talks? What power does he hold? He certainly made vocal his reservations about allowing such rubbish to be a part of the proceedings, but he has no ability to ban or move anything.
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/05/23/my-vast-but-unsavory-power/
Patrick wrote:I tend to disagree with people whose opinions differ from mine. Does that make me a bigot?
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Patrick wrote:I tend to disagree with people whose opinions differ from mine. Does that make me a bigot?
No, of course it doesn't. But if someone is always rude, insulting and frequently acts in a bullying manner along with it, then that does come across as bigotry, to me.
Anyhow, now that you're over here, what are your thoughts on witches/occultists and the practices involved? People like me who spend some of their spare time casting magick spells and communicating with spirits?
I imagine it all sounds rather weird to you, but I assure you - it can be good fun!
Patrick wrote:If we go by "If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" then my statement on this would be
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on Myers' approach. He just comes across to me an unnecessarily insulting and I don't think he's objective in his approach to the paranormal.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Could you list some of the reasons? I must say, it surprises me that you call him an "ass". Whatever you may think of his views, he strives to be polite to everyone on the Daily Grail and doesn't regularly indulge in personal attacks. You may disagree with his views, but is it really fair to call him an "ass" because he thinks differently? Unless there is something in his general behaviour that leads you to that opinion. But I find him to be, in general, a mature and respectful individual.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Greg may have interests that you find odd, and thoughts you disagree with, but does that make him an "ass"? Really? I'm not sure that's fair - can people not have differing interests/opinions without being maligned? (Remember, my criticisms of Myers are not due to his having a different worldview to mine, but because I dislike his insults, etc.) But then, I've been around on the Grail for a while, so I've seen more of a Greg, and I know he's a nice guy. I suspect if you actually met him in person you'd probably like him.
Indeed, while Dawkins warns us of the dangers that religion poses, we might ask whether it is worth being concerned about a world with no religion. Are large populations truly capable of living without a moral compass? It is easy enough to pronounce from a nice office at Oxford University that morality comes from within, not from religion. But for those on the breadline, fighting for their very survival, is it as easy to not transgress moral guidelines if one feels they are arbitrary, rather than rules set in stone? On that arbitrariness – where is the line drawn; who, in effect, sets the morals? Oxford professors, politicians, perhaps corporate leaders? Certainly, there is an arbitrariness to religious morals as well, depending on where you were born, and the problem of morality does not rebut Dawkins’ queries against religion – but if he wishes to change a flawed system, he must also be able to propose a working alternative.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Perhaps I'm wrong about Myers having a hand in it.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:I assumed he had been one of those to directly contact TED an urge them to remove the videos.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:I know that Coyne did so and encouraged his readers to contact TED to complain about the videos and call for their removal. If TED hadn't been pressured so much about it, then the videos would have stayed where they were, with no controversy at all. Coyne and his readers didn't have the power to ban or move the videos themselves, but their actions resulted in the videos being removed.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:You call the videos "rubbish" - did you actually watch either of the videos before they were removed? If not, how can you say they are "rubbish"? Is that your opinion of Rupert Sheldrake and his work and things he says - that it's rubbish? Do you agree with Myers' statement that Sheldrake is a "pseudoscientific kook"? And if so, why?
Bee Gees Fan wrote:One thing I definitely disagree on is that Sheldrake is pseudoscientific. In my opinion, he's one of the most interesting scientists we have, and I think he's a reasonable and logical individual.
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Sheldrake's video was a short talk about some of the dogmas he feels are holding back mainstream science. Surely there's nothing wrong with him saying his piece about that? How is it nonsense? Why should it be removed?
Bee Gees Fan wrote:I didn't get to see Hancock's video, but as far as I can tell, it was nothing to do with theories on the pyramids/Orion/aliens, etc. The bulk of Hancock's talk appears to have been the experiences he had whilst taking ayahuasca, some sort of psychotropic drug. From what I've heard from people who *did* get to see his talk before it was pulled, he framed all of his speculation as just that - speculation. He made no definitive statements of fact. Nor did he actually *encourage* the practice of taking psychotropic drugs. If he had done, removing his video would have been entirely valid.
Perhaps more importantly, TED, as I pointed out, is not an organisation which promotes a particular worldview, nor is it an organisation which is compelled to host talks with *only* individuals whose worldview is mainstream science. They have had numerous talks in the past relating to spirituality, mysticism and also religion. Pastor Rick Warren has given a talk for TED, nobody complained about that and that's still there. Then there have been others who raised "spiritual" concepts in their TED talks - Wade Davis was one, I believe. No one complained, and his video is still there. So if these sorts of talks are allowed (which they obviously are) why are Sheldrake and Hancock being picked on?
Bee Gees Fan wrote:Finally, no matter what one thinks of their ideas, Sheldrake and Hancock are entitled to their free speech. Surely you would agree here? Do you really think it's right to attempt to suppress them in this way?
Moon-Crane wrote:There is NO evidence. There is a lot of anecdotal data and maybe some tentative experimental data that doesn't really explain anything
Moon-Crane wrote:Oh Really? That's just ridiculous. A) Why do we need to have any figure to place our moral basis on. B) What is the point of keeping that figure if we decide it's fake just because we don't have an alternative? The whole point is that no one person, or group of people, can come up with the definitive definition of what is moral and what isn't. People as a whole create their own moral basis – not any one person or people. It's moral relativity.
Moon-Crane wrote:Also, he uses the common trope of the alleged 'hive mind' and blind 'faith' following of Myers by the masses at Pharyngula. That's just plain lazy and factually incorrect. As lazy as any claim allegedly made by PZ, if you wish. I read pretty much every post on his blog. Trust, me there is significant disagreement about fundamental issues, and room for those disagreements to play out.
Moon-Crane wrote: No wonder the members get more aggressive in a place where they don't need to be all nice and polite and accepting.
Moon-Crane wrote:Blame TED not the people complaining?
Moon-Crane wrote:Removed, or moved? I don't frequent the TED site so don't know or care.
Moon-Crane wrote:Did you see what Sheldrakee was talking about at TED? As far as I see it, it boils down to him believing some nonsense about 'life force' and all these inanimate objects such as the sun and rocks and whatever having consciousness.
Moon-Crane wrote:And because proper scientists say this is bollocks
Moon-Crane wrote:he decides that those scientists have a rigid dogma that makes them small minded and insular for not agreeing with his beliefs.
Moon-Crane wrote:See my post above about his talk. You see the strapline of TED: "ideas worth spreading" – that idea was, i'd suggest, such claptrap that it wasn't worth spreading.
Moon-Crane wrote:Seriously? Nobody is suppressing their free speech! They have the right to say anything they like - and nobody is preventing them from saying it. They don't, however, have the right to have their stuff put in places where the owner of said place doesn't want it. They have 100% rights to free speech in terms of putting their talks up on their own paid for web hosting and promote it to death if they so wish. This alleged suppression of free speech nonsense holds zero water.
Patrick wrote:[If we go by "If you can't say anything nice then don't say anything at all" then my statement on this would be
Bee Gees Fan wrote:While I don't think that (most) professional sceptics have a following of blind faith, I do think there is a tendency for some of the readers/fans (whatever you want to call them) to take sceptics' statements at face value, when they're on subjects about which the readers already agree with the sceptic anyway. There have been cases of some sceptics making false statements about parapsychology and psi research and the individuals commenting don't call it out, they just seem to take their word for it. They seem to assume that the sceptic knows what they're talking about and has all their facts right, where in some instances, that hasn't been the case at all.
It just seems to me that *some* people who call themselves sceptics are not really sceptics at all, because they've made up their mind that paranormal phenomena cannot, and do not, exist. If someone has made up their mind either way, then they're not a sceptic.
Moon-Crane wrote:Wouldn't disagree. I'd say it's obvious that people, in general, will cut more slack to the people they admire.
Moon-Crane wrote:There are certainly times when i disgree with PZ, but more often than not he makes good points - and certainly appears knows his biology.
Moon-Crane wrote:I like that he's militant in his atheism, too. I like a bit of fire.
Moon-Crane wrote:There are, thankfully, constant debates within the skeptic community about the application of scepticism. People have their own privilege and don't always necessarily apply scepticism to their own world view. I guess it's a natural reaction in some respects. There are people who like to post timely reminders to the point of being a skeptic (or sceptic). The CFI is not perfect. but i believe they are (as far as i've read and heard) fair in their approach to subjects and the guests they interview.
I would posit that you like the fire because it's on a stance that you already agree with anyway. If PZ was a militant Catholic, for example, would you like the fire then? I'm assuming you wouldn't.
Personally, "militant" anything is a big turn-off for me. I find militant belief and militant non-belief equally unpalatable, equally annoying and equally intolerant. Maybe I'm just a hippy at heart, but I like things to be nice and easy and friendly and non-aggressive. I have noticed that a seemingly a lot of people who are militant in either religion or atheism or scepticism seem to be male (not all, but many.) Is the desire to be militant in one's stance more of a masculine trait, perhaps? Is it in part due to all that testosterone? I think it's an interesting hypothesis and if there's anything to it, perhaps all the militants from whatever area should just have more sex?
That's a good idea now that I think about it. More sex, more chilled out people.
If their approach is genuinely fair and they're not complete dicks to people they interview, then that's definitely a couple of points in their favour.[...]
Return to Off Topic Discussion
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
© Site contents are copyright Stuart Lee 1999 - 2024. This is a Frasier fan site and is not affiliated in any way with the program, Grub St Productions, Paramount or NBC. |