|
Post by JayUtah on May 4, 2010 12:20:24 GMT -4
I clicked on it, too, and was so taken aback that people can still believe that kind of garbage that I had no response. Indeed. I would be proud to be hated by such people.
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on May 4, 2010 12:31:31 GMT -4
Interestingly enough, anti-Mormon criticism on the internet works almost exactly the same way. As does anti-evolution, anti-climate-change and anti-homosexual criticism.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 4, 2010 12:37:56 GMT -4
I don't read this as Jason promoting his religion, but rather as drawing upon his experience to note another example of a phenomenon we're discussing. In my opinion it's on topic. That was my intent, yes. My point was that the phenomenon is not restricted to just conspiracy theories, but seems quite common in many forums on many diverse topics across the internet. I have to wonder if it is because of the nature of internet forums that this cyclical pattern is followed or if it is the result of some deeper common psychological root, as Jay theorizes.
|
|
|
Post by Apollo Gnomon on May 4, 2010 12:58:37 GMT -4
Jason...would it be possible for you to stay on topic? This thread has nothing to do with religion, yet you feel the need to make religious comparisons. I sympathize with the separation of church and whatever, but I feel compelled to agree with Jason here: I have seen the phenomenon he mentions (the cyclical nature of polemical argument) and I tend to believe it does indeed have a single psychological root cause. It doesn't seem to matter what one is arguing about -- religion, science, history, whatever. When strong feelings are at stake, a false novelty arises when one first encounters the argument. I don't read this as Jason promoting his religion, but rather as drawing upon his experience to note another example of a phenomenon we're discussing. In my opinion it's on topic. I agree - the topic of the moment shifted to the nature of the posts on that forum and Jason contributed his unique experience with similar thinking in other venues. The rampant Antisemitism there violates their own terms of service regarding racist statements, but apparently it's okay when it's the Illuminati being discussed.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 4, 2010 14:39:01 GMT -4
As for personal experience, I was raised Catholic, which brings up some loathing historical in its scope, and have become a Pagan, which--since I don't believe we're drawing on existing beliefs that were just underground for hundreds of years--has just been laughed at pretty much since inception. So yeah.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 4, 2010 14:48:23 GMT -4
Jason...would it be possible for you to stay on topic? This thread has nothing to do with religion, yet you feel the need to make religious comparisons. I sympathize with the separation of church and whatever, but I feel compelled to agree with Jason here: I have seen the phenomenon he mentions (the cyclical nature of polemical argument) and I tend to believe it does indeed have a single psychological root cause. It doesn't seem to matter what one is arguing about -- religion, science, history, whatever. When strong feelings are at stake, a false novelty arises when one first encounters the argument. I don't read this as Jason promoting his religion, but rather as drawing upon his experience to note another example of a phenomenon we're discussing. In my opinion it's on topic. Jay, I really wish you would write a book that dealt with this topic. A book that examines and characterizes the terrible thinking we see among our species and provided methods and examples to the reader to identify bad thinking in themselves and others. From you hoax busting posts, I have learned many specific ways to clarify my thinking and explain the faults in others arguments, and have used these to teach my children better and more objective thinking. You have a rare talent that only a few on these boards get to benefit from. Why not broaden that base?
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 4, 2010 15:02:15 GMT -4
It doesn't seem to matter what one is arguing about -- religion, science, history, whatever. I can agree with that as long as the criticism is irrational, and I'm certain that there are more than a fair share of people who irrationally criticize religious beliefs, but there are many, myself included, who have very rational criticisms regarding religious beliefs, so bringing religion into this conversation only serves to "muddy" the waters. In my opinion, of course...
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on May 4, 2010 20:37:01 GMT -4
Jason...would it be possible for you to stay on topic? This thread has nothing to do with religion, yet you feel the need to make religious comparisons. I'll make you a "deal"...I'll leave you alone on your religious threads, if you stop trying to inject your religion into places where it doesn't belong. Thanks... I fully agree with Jay here. RAF, you owe Jason an apology. You wouldn't have said a thing if someone had pointed out that 9/11 Truthers act the same way. Jason was making a legitimate point.
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 4, 2010 22:22:21 GMT -4
I fully agree with Jay here. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. For what?, For steadfastly maintaining that religious beliefs of any kind are irrational? Don't be silly. Yes...truthers irrationally deny the facts concerning the events of 911...there are no rational truther arguments. Perhaps he was, but that's not my point..the difference being that there ARE rational arguments to be made against religions and religious beliefs...the same can not be said for truther arguments denying the events of 911. Is anyone here "getting" this?
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on May 4, 2010 23:39:04 GMT -4
I really wish you would write a book that dealt with this topic. Thanks for the vote of confidence. But Michael Shermer does it so much better than I.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on May 5, 2010 2:35:17 GMT -4
I don't know; I find your writing style more accessible than his. You're also a bit more politic, a lesson a lot of people could stand to learn.
|
|
|
Post by Count Zero on May 5, 2010 5:35:16 GMT -4
I wish I hadn't clicked that, I just had a shower... So, it made you feel icky? <ducks, runs>
|
|
|
Post by chew on May 5, 2010 6:52:40 GMT -4
I really wish you would write a book that dealt with this topic. Thanks for the vote of confidence. But Michael Shermer does it so much better than I. I disagree. You are a much better writer than Shermer. I've trudged through three of his books; his writing style makes it a chore to get through them. Unfortunately, he doesn't write the way he talks. Your style, knowledge of the subject and logic, and complete demolition of the HBs makes you a joy to read. If you won't write a book, at least get interviewed on the Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 5, 2010 9:43:22 GMT -4
Man, that's appalling. And note how they all lap it up, assuming it's true - no one seems to have doubted its veracity. I'm reminded of a Howard Walrop short story I've read, which takes that "Jews Rule The World" myth and runs with it - much better than this rubbish.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on May 5, 2010 9:46:12 GMT -4
I really wish you would write a book that dealt with this topic. Thanks for the vote of confidence. But Michael Shermer does it so much better than I. Shermer's strengths and yours are different. He has a psychology background, thus his book Why People Believe Weird Things. What you could shine with is not a book on "why" but an examination of how irrational arguments are presented, the common irrationality in the arguments, how to find the irrationality buried in the emotion of the message and how the reader can clear up their own thinking. Each writer is unique and the proficiencies of one author can be complemented by the different strengths of another. I can also understand if you don't want to invest in such a project, please just remember there is an audience for it and they can be reached.
|
|