This too speaks volumes.
My Introductional Post.
- Thread starter ZAV
- Start date
This too speaks volumes.
Yet how ironic is it to approach the unassuming science-oriented folks here and proclaim, rather sarcastically, the faults of atheism, the ignorance of the members here, etc. ?
Some of your comments and tactics led me seriously wonder if you are just testing some hypothesis related to your studies in Psychology. Your intent to advance some kind of essay also made me wonder if you are promoting yourself. Hopefully that's just an overblown reaction.
Psychologists I know tend to be more even-tempered, unassuming, and tolerant of others, even curious about what makes them tick. So you distinguish yourself, so far, in this regard.
The subject we have been debating is perennial and the arguments are mostly quite old. You have no doubt known for years where atheists stand and why. You posted a statement that sort of threw down the gauntlet against common mistakes people make (Elohim "cobbling" was one) and announced that you are the Mr. Clean (do you know this character):
None of this comports with my customary first impressions of a typical scientist, or of the psychologists I mentioned. You may eventually get around to changing the impression, but so far I don't see a tendency in that direction.
I don't doubt that you're probably way smarter than me, heck, anyone here can beat me at something. Who cares? (Although I have decimated your faux persona on the other thread!...and enjoyed the game.
)In a similar scenario in that same thread, wynn (who introduces the "quixotic" allusion above), stopped responding to me, noting "One cannot argue with an enlightened person." Note the double entendre. So there is a point where the intent to assert an idea backfires.
I enjoy this site, and though I may sometimes get carried away, I initially just came here looking for information then found that I liked the quality and depth of the people who engage a lot of topics with frequent commentary.
I discovered along the way that I was able to vent some of my own peculiar attitudes, sometimes getting checkmated in the process, but other times just letting off steam. My particular gripe as reflected in your comments is that religious affiliated politicos have posed a clear and present danger, not only to science, but to the dissemination of truth in general. This is particularly offensive to me in the adaptation of their highly developed methods of persuasion, not only because they are preying on the naivete of their vulnerable victims, but also because I was indoctrinated, like millions, in the early Cold War under similar propaganda methodologies which arose out of insanely unethical national security programs. So it is not religion I hate (an assertion you lodge at folks in general in your OP), but I do have a deep irreconcilable aversion to the institutional dishonesty that infects some religious organizations, and the unscrupulous abuse of their stance as a teaching authority to instead disseminate propaganda. Folks my age were systematically lied to as youngsters and many were indelibly traumatized by it. We see the pattern in full bloom in our retirement years and it raises our hackles. So this is an underlying theme in many of my posts, sometimes more overt or harsh than I intend, but that’s who I am. And it’s one of my skeptical reactions to your projected persona, which reminds me a little of the Medicine Show wagon pulling in to town in an old Western flick.
These are some of my thoughts, take them or leave them. In a word: don't be too sure you are fooling all of the people all of the time.