Christian missionary becomes atheist after trying to convert tribe

[GrandizerII]

A wise man!

Always good to respect and listen to the "other side."

Listen yes, respect, no. People earn respect, their existential beliefs gain respect when they can be supported by evidence.

For me personally, it's contextual. I can respect the views of the tribes like the Pirahas even if I do believe they're clueless about what we do know about the world.

[Anomalocaris]

Listen yes, respect, no. People earn respect, their existential beliefs gain respect when they can be supported by evidence.

For me personally, it's contextual. I can respect the views of the tribes like the Pirahas even if I do believe they're clueless about what we do know about the world.

 

I think many of those who make the blanket claims about all views being worthy of equal respect and value are not motivated by real sense of equality.    Instead they use respect as a tool to assert their own superiority over all others.   Pronouncing all others as being equal allows them to come across as being perched so high that from their own lofty vantage point, real differences becomes insignificant.

[EgoDeath]

For me personally, it's contextual. I can respect the views of the tribes like the Pirahas even if I do believe they're clueless about what we do know about the world.

 

I think many of those who make the blanket claims that everyone should be listened to and respected as if equal really are not arguing for equality.   What they are doing is indulging in a inner sense of superiority over everyone else.   They are saying "everyone is as good as equal beneath me, because I stand so high above that their differences with each other are insignificant from my lofty perch".

Such an attitude is par for the course with Bel. He comes off as if he truly believes he understands the world more than anyone else, because he reads a lot, or claims to.

[Anomalocaris]

 

I think many of those who make the blanket claims that everyone should be listened to and respected as if equal really are not arguing for equality.   What they are doing is indulging in a inner sense of superiority over everyone else.   They are saying "everyone is as good as equal beneath me, because I stand so high above that their differences with each other are insignificant from my lofty perch".

Such an attitude is par for the course with Bel. He comes off as if he truly believes he understands the world more than anyone else, because he reads a lot, or claims to.

That is certainly not contradicted by his tendency to set himself above his interlocutors by dropping names of this "great" philosopher or that "great" Christian while trying sometimes to affect a humble and reasonable voice.

[EgoDeath]

That is certainly not contradicted by his tendency to set himself above his interlocutors by dropping names of this "great" philosopher or that "great" Christian while trying sometimes to affect a humble and reasonable voice.

LOL!

I wonder if there's a situation where he doesn't quote a philosopher or "great" Christian... Like... does he do this when he's out to lunch?

Bel: "You know, the late Epicurus once said, 'Mozzarella sticks without marinara are like a long life without friends,' so I suggest you get the marinara."

Bel's friend: "Dude can we just have one normal meal... please?"

[Belacqua]

Listen yes, respect, no. People earn respect

Maybe "respect" comes across too strongly. 

I meant something like: not treat them as dummies before we have proof that they're dummies. Just the standard rule of thumb that everybody knows something I don't.

---

Once they've spoken and you've listened, then it's okay to say "Fuck those dumbasses."

Yes, granted! 

Just because life is short, we can't devote time to bigots. There are harmful people. 

Yesterday on a different thread someone was saying to me that even the wisest of religious writers is "gullible" and never worth reading. (I had mentioned Martin Buber, a Jewish existentialist writer who wrote in reaction to Nietzsche.) 

I understand that nobody has time to read everything, but I think that refusing to listen to people like that is a mistake. 

Also the video in the OP tells us something about TED talks. If an anthropologist had gone to Africa, met a group of Christians, and been persuaded by their questions to convert to their religion, he would not have been offered a talk. Though a scientist's conversion the other way might be just as interesting and more challenging to established opinion on this forum. (Depending on the guy who converted.)

[Anomalocaris]

Listen yes, respect, no. People earn respect

Maybe "respect" comes across too strongly. 

I meant something like: not treat them as dummies before we have proof that they're dummies. Just the standard rule of thumb that everybody knows something I don't.

There is no need for any such rule of thump.   You can evaluate what they say they know or clearly think they know and work to determine if they know it or not.


Making that a rule of thumb bespeaks of the sterile tendency to privilege evasion and obscurantism over fact finding.

[EgoDeath]

Maybe "respect" comes across too strongly. 

I meant something like: not treat them as dummies before we have proof that they're dummies. Just the standard rule of thumb that everybody knows something I don't.

So, you're changing your statement now?

Yes, granted! 

Just because life is short, we can't devote time to bigots. There are harmful people.

Interesting. The first thing that I, and a lot of people here on this board, think of when the word "bigot" is brought up is something like this:





And, let me stop you before you even try it. No, of course this does not represent the majority of Christians. However, this type of thinking represents the more extreme end of a spectrum of hateful thought that inhabits a lot of religious thought.

So, no. Excuse me if I don't think we should respect these people or their beliefs. Excuse me if I don't think they "might know something" I don't. I don't give a fuck, even if they do.

Yesterday on a different thread someone was saying to me that even the wisest of religious writers is "gullible" and never worth reading. (I had mentioned Martin Buber, a Jewish existentialist writer who wrote in reaction to Nietzsche.) 

Well, the problem is, time and time again, religious "thinkers" have proven themselves to be insanely gullible, intellectually lazy and disingenuous people. This isn't something that atheists or other skeptics are coming up with out of thin air. We are observing and reporting on an actual, witnessed phenomenon. So, does someone being religious automatically mean they're not worth listening to? Of course not. But, they're probably not worth listening to on the subject of religion, as they're inherently biased. Unless, of course, a person just has some interest in learning about a religion. And even then, they should be careful about which religious "thinker" they listen to.

I understand that nobody has time to read everything, but I think that refusing to listen to people like that is a mistake.

Nope. There's plenty of people we shouldn't even begin to bother listening to. Plenty.

Also the video in the OP tells us something about TED talks. If an anthropologist had gone to Africa, met a group of Christians, and been persuaded by their questions to convert to their religion, he would not have been offered a talk.

That's an interesting speculation. But that's all it is. Speculation. There are more than a couple TED talks by religious individuals who speak on faith and their religion. Not many, granted, but they're out there. Although, people who attend TED talks are people interested, at least somewhat, in deeper, intellectual topics. After all, it isn't a Kid Rock concert, is it?

We already know about the correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

It's really no surprise that there are not too many religious TED talks.

Though a scientist's conversion the other way might be just as interesting and more challenging to established opinion on this forum. (Depending on the guy who converted.)

Jesus Bel you just cannot help but be the contrarian. You're the guy who roots against the home team, aren't ya?

[Belacqua]

You're the guy who roots against the home team, aren't ya?

I don't think in terms of team sports. I think loyalty to one side may cause us to have double standards -- allowing in our own team what we would condemn in the other. Best to have loyalty to truth and strict scrutiny. 

https://www.amazon.com/Abolition-Politic...oks&sr=1-1

[Anomalocaris]

Unlike in sports, this is not two sides playing the same game according to the same rules.    Here each side plays according to a different set of rules which the other side can not abide by.    

So the question is what exactly are the specific consequences of those differing rules, and what does the acceptance of these consequences say about the side that embraces such rules.    Double standard is not the fundamental problem.  It is just a distraction to deflect from discovery of the fundamental problem.