|
gungadin09 -> RE: Atheists have a PR problem (12/4/2011 7:18:16 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
What I find hard to understand is why it would matter to a person what somebody else believes in regards to religion, which is why I place the blame for the believers' antipathy on their suspension of reason. They are able to feel the way they do because they are deliberately operating irrationally.
Why irrationally? The study kalikshama linked blames the results on theists' notion that religion is a precondition for moral living- because that's the reason they gave for their distrust. Theists are wrong to believe people won't behave ethically without God looking over their shoulder, but, given they believe that, their distrust makes sense. Their reasoning is fine. They just started off with a bad assumption, that's all. Call them ignorant, if you must, but what makes them irrational?
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
So part of the problem is that theists resent having people say things that are true? Yeah, I can agree with that, they can really get their backs up when confronted with facts that contradict some part of their chosen dogma."
What things that are true, exactly? The fact that atheists are as ethical as theists? i believe there is evidence to support that idea, and if it were presented to theists, and they got offended, then i would grant you that they were being irrational and resentful about facing the truth. But i think it's just as likely that the majority of theists who believe that have never examined any hard evidence to the contrary. Which is why i would call their belief ignorant, not irrational.
Or did you meant, the fact that theists are irrational. If you have any hard evidence of that, i would love to see it. Until then, i will not consider it a fact, although i will concede that theists probably resent it when you say that.
Moreover, most everyone gets their backs up when confronted with facts that contradict some firmly held belief. That's human nature, not some trait unique to theists.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
It's like trying to persuade Cheri she's wrong to back the Habs. There's no point telling her that the defence sucks, or they can't score goals, she knows that, she watches the games.
But "she's wrong to back the Habs" is not a fact, either. "The Habs defense sucks, they can't score goals, they seldom win"- those are all facts, just not the only applicable ones. Deciding which is the best team is a value judgement, and a person will make that judgement based on whatever criteria is most important to them.
quote:
ORIGINAL: HeatherMcLeather
But she doesn't care. She's chosen to disregard those facts and continue to cheer on her team based on an emotional response, rather than an analysis of the facts.
No, she's simply chosen to give more weight to other facts, such as, they're from her home town, they're spunky, she knows the players personally, they have red uniforms, whatever. Those are still facts, she's still making a decision based on facts. Her decision to back the Habs would only be irrational if she was backing them because they were from her home town, while ignoring the fact they they really weren't. There is no right or wrong reason to support a team. As long as the Habs meet whatever standard she has for the "best" team, she's acting rationally in supporting them.
pam
|
|
|
|
