[Serious] Over the top

[Belacqua]

Maybe people have different ways to use an Internet forum. Some people want to discuss what's true. Other sites encourage a kind of unthinking consensus -- e.g. "immigrants bad!"

Sometimes I see statements that are over the top. Surely no thinking person can agree with the sentence as made? I mean, we can and should argue against falsehoods, but not by making new overgeneralized falsehoods.

Here is an example of what I'm thinking about. I've resisted the urge to clean up the English.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

There have been many many people in history whose religious view is an important part of what he or she is, who is more than "very little" and has in fact developed very well, into a good and important person -- while staying religious. e.g. Isaac Newton 

Anyway, I called this statement out when it was first made, but nobody else did, and I found that a little disappointing.

[Amarok]

And more of your inane babble

[GrandizerII]

I'd need to see the context of what that person meant exactly. Perhaps whoever said that doesn't regard those historical persons you refer to as being informed by their religious views but rather in spite of their religious views or something of the sort.

I agree that it's nevertheless rude to say, but this is an atheist forum. Atheists are going to be in large numbers here and some will say mean things about theists.

[Belacqua]

I agree that it's nevertheless rude to say, but this is an atheist forum. Atheists are going to be in large numbers here and some will say mean things about theists.

I don't see "this is an atheist forum" as a reason why people can type nonsense. Unless we want the kind of forum where we all just type "religion bad!!!!!!" and that's considered sufficient. 

While we can certainly be anti-religion, we can simultaneously be pro-truth.

[onlinebiker]

And some atheists are just pricks...

The big difference between a religious asshole and an atheist asshole is the atheist doesn't have an invisible buddy on which to blame his stupidity.

[brewer]

Maybe people have different ways to use an Internet forum. Some people want to discuss what's true. Other sites encourage a kind of unthinking consensus -- e.g. "immigrants bad!"

Sometimes I see statements that are over the top. Surely no thinking person can agree with the sentence as made? I mean, we can and should argue against falsehoods, but not by making new overgeneralized falsehoods.

Here is an example of what I'm thinking about. I've resisted the urge to clean up the English.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

There have been many many people in history whose religious view is an important part of what he or she is, who is more than "very little" and has in fact developed very well, into a good and important person -- while staying religious. e.g. Isaac Newton 

Anyway, I called this statement out when it was first made, but nobody else did, and I found that a little disappointing.

Really,.......... Isaac Newton. Would you like to go back a bit farther into history to prop up your position? But then, his religious ideas are not exactly why most people consider him memorable to society.  

I think the issue for me is that if religion/philosophy is all that the individual has to contribute to society (especially if the person only regurgitates and is pompous about it) then I won't have much of an opinion about the individual.

[Shell B]

This is pretty vanilla as far as forum comments go. I mean, it's not even that inaccurate. I couldn't figure out who you are based on your religion. If I could, that really wouldn't say much to your benefit. Who wants to be a walking billboard for their religious views? Surely that's not what religious people want?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Maybe people have different ways to use an Internet forum. Some people want to discuss what's true. Other sites encourage a kind of unthinking consensus -- e.g. "immigrants bad!"

Sometimes I see statements that are over the top. Surely no thinking person can agree with the sentence as made? I mean, we can and should argue against falsehoods, but not by making new overgeneralized falsehoods.

Here is an example of what I'm thinking about. I've resisted the urge to clean up the English.

For religious view to be able to inform who a person is, that person must be very little and has scant hope of ever being much more.

Does anybody here really believe this? 

There have been many many people in history whose religious view is an important part of what he or she is, who is more than "very little" and has in fact developed very well, into a good and important person -- while staying religious. e.g. Isaac Newton 

Anyway, I called this statement out when it was first made, but nobody else did, and I found that a little disappointing.

It's an opinion.  I see nothing to get in a twist about.

Boru

[Belacqua]

Really,.......... Isaac Newton. Would you like to go back a bit farther into history to prop up your position? 

Well, we could go the other way, toward more modern people. W.H. Auden comes to mind. His religious views were certainly a part of his self-image, important to him in every part of life. And he did develop pretty well. Also Lewis Carroll, he was cool. Surely you can think of people, right?

Do we really have to cite cases of religious people who did good things? Who developed into good people? 

I think the issue for me is that if religion/philosophy is all that the individual has to contribute to society (especially if the person only regurgitates and is pompous about it) then I won't have much of an opinion about the individual.

I consider contributions made in philosophy to be worthwhile to society. 

Granted, regurgitation and pomposity are not positive attributes. But here we're pointing out obviously negative traits that were not in the original over-the-top statement. If you want to add to what he said, in order to make it acceptable, you can, but that's not what he said.

[Belacqua]

This is pretty vanilla as far as forum comments go. I mean, it's not even that inaccurate.

Is this a roundabout way of saying that it is accurate? 

I'd be interested in hearing your argument as to why people who consider their religion to be an important part of who they are must be considered "not much" and can't develop.

---

It's an opinion.  I see nothing to get in a twist about.

Boru

It depends on if we want to have good, defensible opinions, or if we want to tolerate stupid stuff.