How religion can harm young minds...

[ReliStuPhD]

I am currently reading the book "The Book that Made Your World" by Vishal Mangalwadi. In it the author makes the case that Christianity enabled the sciences to develop in the west while Eastern religions had the opposite effect of not promoting science at all. In the authors opinion it was the Christian mind set that allowed science and technology to develop.

Pretty much. The Christian mindset brought with it the notion that Creation was ordered logically and could be understood as such. There's a pretty strong thread of rational inquiry that runs throughout Christian thought. That modern-day atheists don't know this speaks strongly to the fact that (1) the poor job the Church has done of communicating this and (2) atheists are resolute in their determination not to read the primary sources.

Another factor brought by the author is that many traditions devalued labor and extolled meditation and thoughtful contemplation of "Higher Ideals' than the mere production of goods. Christianity, on the other hand, praised the virtue of labor and hard work but allowed the worker the freedom to devise more efficient ways of accomplishing the task. This led to the development of technology and the machines that are now used to accomplish these tasks while the Christian morality directs these activities so as to do as little harm as possible.

Max Weber is worth a read on this particular point.

[ReliStuPhD]

I take that to mean I'm in his ignore list. I have arrived!

When someone ends up ignoring everyone who disagrees with him/her, you get a pretty good sense of just how important it is for that person to protect his/her beliefs against scrutiny.

[Ned]

I take that to mean I'm in his ignore list. I have arrived!

When someone ends up ignoring everyone who disagrees with him/her, you get a pretty good sense of just how important it is for that person to protect his/her beliefs against scrutiny.

How about ignoring those who are foul mouthed, malicious, rude and insulting, instead of debating issues in a civilized and rational way?

I think that ignoring them is fully justified, whether they agree with one or not.

PS. See threads: "YOUR best way of relating to the world" and "Options in a 'Mental Institution'"

[ReliStuPhD]

How about ignoring those who are foul mouthed, malicious, rude and insulting, instead of debating issues in a civilized and rational way?

I think that ignoring them is fully justified, whether they agree with one or not.

Yes, certainly " foul mouthed and malicious." But what about "rude and insulting?" You're terribly rude and insulting at times, but that doesn't seem to me to constitute adequate grounds to ignore you. And, to be honest, there have been more than a few turns where you've not debated the issues in a rational manner, either. Maybe you and I just have different opinions/tolerances for that sort of thing, but my perception is that you're basically ignoring anyone who disagrees in all but the most polite manner. Of course, that's your prerogative, so far be it from me to cast aspersions, but I do get the sense that it's OK for you to insult others' beliefs, but if they do the same to you, they find your ignore list. But like I said, that's just my perception. There are certainly some assholes here. I just think you've cast your net too wide in some cases.

Then again, if the ignore list comes from running into these interlocutors on other subforums, I can certainly understand that. I only browse this one.

[Skip]

I take that to mean I'm in his ignore list. I have arrived!

When someone ends up ignoring everyone who disagrees with him/her, you get a pretty good sense of just how important it is for that person to protect his/her beliefs against scrutiny.

Erg. It was a joke. I assumed thedoc could not quote my previous post, because he'd placed me on the ignore list, which would mean somebody considers me irritating enough to ignore.

If thedoc wants to protect his beliefs, why shouldn't he? If he's happier without reading my irreverent take on things, why shouldn't he? If he has no time for atheists, or won't tolerate flippancy, or just doesn't like somebody's style - what skin is that off your nose?
If I don't mind, why the hell should you?

[Ned]

I do get the sense that it's OK for you to insult others' beliefs, but if they do the same to you, they find your ignore list.

You are missing the point again.

The only reason I ignore anyone, regardless weather they agree with me or not, is if they indulge in personal insults against me, or in rare cases, such as SOB, against practically everyone else.

I may strongly state my opinion about their beliefs but it is not a personal attack on the holders of those beliefs. I do not call anyone names, even if they feel personally threatened when I attack their beliefs.

You and the doc, for example, aren't in my ignore list, even though 'your god' only knows that we disagree. However both of you have been polite to me, even though you show a lot more interest in my personality than in my arguments. But that's all right, you haven't crossed the line yet to call me insulting names.

Last example: I had a few attempts to rationally discuss vegetarianism with HC, quite until he called me 'hysterical' at which time he was quarantined with the rest of them. I have never been hysterical in my entire 72 years of life and there was no call to sink down to that level. At that point there was no hope any more to engage in a rational discussion with him/her. (I strongly believe that it is a 'he' -- women tend to be more polite in my experience)

At one point I was ready to leave this forum but then I realized that there are enough intelligent and decent members I enjoy talking to (they don't always agree with me but they are always polite and civil) so I decided to stay. The ignore list is a great invention because, even though I notice that the chorus follows me wherever I go, but I can't see their posts, so my threads are not polluted and cluttered up with their witticisms, so I can concentrate on the intelligent and civil posts that I do see. In the meantime let them have their fun, it's no skin off my nose.

I hope this cleared it up.

[ReliStuPhD]

Erg. It was a joke. I assumed thedoc could not quote my previous post, because he'd placed me on the ignore list, which would mean somebody considers me irritating enough to ignore.

Thought you meant Ned. I'd be surprised to find that thedoc has ignored anyone. Well, maybe one or two.

If thedoc wants to protect his beliefs, why shouldn't he? If he's happier without reading my irreverent take on things, why shouldn't he? If he has no time for atheists, or won't tolerate flippancy, or just doesn't like somebody's style - what skin is that off your nose?
If I don't mind, why the hell should you?

Someone took things a bit too seriously.

[ReliStuPhD]

I do get the sense that it's OK for you to insult others' beliefs, but if they do the same to you, they find your ignore list.

You are missing the point again.

The only reason I ignore anyone, regardless weather they agree with me or not, is if they indulge in personal insults against me, or in rare cases, such as SOB, against practically everyone else.

That wouldn't be me missing the point. That would be you not making the point clear.

I may strongly state my opinion about their beliefs but it is not a personal attack on the holders of those beliefs. I do not call anyone names, even if they feel personally threatened when I attack their beliefs.

Right. And it was not my intent to suggest that you did. Now that I know you meant ad hominems, etc, I agree that those are certainly good reasons to just take a pass on anything that person wants to "contribute."

You and the doc, for example, aren't in my ignore list, even though 'your god' only knows that we disagree. However both of you have been polite to me, even though you show a lot more interest in my personality than in my arguments. But that's all right, you haven't crossed the line yet to call me insulting names.

I'll hope to keep it that way. If I do ever fly off the handle, call me on it. I've been known to apologize for unfair comments in the past.

Last example: I had a few attempts to rationally discuss vegetarianism with HC, quite until he called me 'hysterical' at which time he was quarantined with the rest of them. I have never been hysterical in my entire 72 years of life and there was no call to sink down to that level. At that point there was no hope any more to engage in a rational discussion with him/her. (I strongly believe that it is a 'he' -- women tend to be more polite in my experience)

At one point I was ready to leave this forum but then I realized that there are enough intelligent and decent members I enjoy talking to (they don't always agree with me but they are always polite and civil) so I decided to stay. The ignore list is a great invention because, even though I notice that the chorus follows me wherever I go, but I can't see their posts, so my threads are not polluted and cluttered up with their witticisms, so I can concentrate on the intelligent and civil posts that I do see. In the meantime let them have their fun, it's no skin off my nose.

I hope this cleared it up.

It certainly has. My thanks.

[Ned]

I am so pleased that you understand!

Thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply.

[ReliStuPhD]

I am so pleased that you understand!

Thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply.

You bet. Your clarification was helpful.

[Ned]

I am so pleased that you understand!

Thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply.

You bet. Your clarification was helpful.

I made my announcement in the "Why are some people filled with mindless hatred?" thread. I assumed everyone saw it.

If you want to talk to me, present your arguments in a clear, logical manner, and I will answer in kind. It doesn't matter if we disagree, we can work on it and see if we can find common ground.

However, leave the malice out of it: obscenity, vulgarity, personal insults, name calling, slurs, etc. At the first sign of any of it, into my ignore list you go and I will never see another thing you wrote on this forum (unless quoted by somebody I do read).

[Ned]

I have just created my 'signature' to make sure everybody understands my ignore list.

I hope it works!

EDIT: It did not display my signature. Why? On other forums it is automatic. I went to my control panel but did not see a way to activate it.

Can anyone tell me?

[thedoc]

Erg. It was a joke. I assumed thedoc could not quote my previous post, because he'd placed me on the ignore list, which would mean somebody considers me irritating enough to ignore.

Thought you meant Ned. I'd be surprised to find that thedoc has ignored anyone. Well, maybe one or two.

I hope you're not intentionally trying to embarrass me with that comment, if you were it worked. I need to admit that I have more that one or two on my list, but my criteria are a bit different, usually after I have determined that the user has nothing to say that is of any interest or relevance, I will ignore them just to speed up my reading of the thread. There are two exceptions to this, in that often others will quote the person on ignore and I see the comment anyway. Also there is a "Display this Post" on the posts being ignored, and if that particular member makes enough comments that are interesting and not particularly abusive, I can always reverse the decision to ignore them.

PS Skip, irritating is only one of my criteria, and FTR, you are on my reconsider list.

[Starfall]

First of, you're quoting thedoc there, not me.

My bad. I think that might have been an issue with the auto quote function, as I didn't type any name in personally.

As for the actual content of your post, it just shows you have a poor grasp on the history of the church, science, and the philosophical underpinnings that tie them to one another. There's plenty of scholarship out there on the subject. It would behoove you to read some of it. Actually, even Wikipedia will do for starters. Have fun the last section. You know, the one that says you're basically relying on late 19th century propaganda.

You seem to have misunderstood my post. I never said the Catholic Church opposed science. I merely stated that their actions were performed with a mindset that had the inadvertent side effect of hindering scientific progress. It is incorrect to blame the Church alone for this, as the feudal structure of Europe at the time also made scientific progress quite difficult. On the contrary, the Church actually tried to encourage scientific progress, mostly to no avail. Scientific progress is about critical thought, critical thought is about the freedom to ask questions and to find their answers. In medieval Europe, that freedom was lacking and hence there was no scientific progress. Let alone the Church, I never even said Christianity opposed science. What slowed down the scientific advance in the Dark Ages was a combination of factors that led to the halt of critical thinking, and one of the areas in which this halt in thinking manifested itself is, undoubtedly, religion.

[Ned]

I have just created my 'signature' to make sure everybody understands my ignore list.

I hope it works!

EDIT: It did not display my signature. Why? On other forums it is automatic. I went to my control panel but did not see a way to activate it.

Can anyone tell me?

Until someone tells me how to make it work, I will have to copy it manually after each post I make!

WARNING!!!: Malice, name-calling, vulgarity is a one-way ticket to my ignore list!!!