tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post2634219652517944408..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Understanding Others vs. Name CallingAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-5493722293475991982009-01-01T09:19:00.000-07:002009-01-01T09:19:00.000-07:00"The person who "goes straight to name-calling" is..."The person who "goes straight to name-calling" is the arrogant person who presumes a perfect understanding of a topic without actually studying it, and is the person to be criticized and condemned."<BR/><BR/>Assuming the word "condemned" to be a form of degradation (such as name-calling) are you not doing a similar thing as those who are name callers? That is, you suggest the name callers are arrogant, and by doing so you are engaging in a similar activity as them, albeit from an opposite perspective.<BR/><BR/>Can you not see that?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-80340633051037488082008-12-18T17:53:00.000-07:002008-12-18T17:53:00.000-07:00In defense of Mrs. Steelman, I can understand why ...In defense of Mrs. Steelman, I can understand why she is, at times, a bit of a cynic, especially when it comes to religious individuals. Her belief that the more religious a person is the crazier they tend to be, is substantiated by a mountain of anecdotal evidence. I've had a wider personal experience with religion and the religious than she, so I've had the pleasure of interacting with people who are both devout and rational (compartmentalized).<BR/><BR/>I can see, from her experiences, how she has formed such an opinion, how she feels she has <EM>already</EM> examined the facts, and has thereby drawn valid, evidence-based conclusions. She's an intelligent person who is willing to consider additional evidence (my positive experiences), but I can see how prejudices easily form.<BR/><BR/><EM>"So, while I advocate that it is legitimate to use criticism, condemnation, and ridicule against those who advocate evidence-free decision making (particularly on matters of public policy), the person who does the condemning must still show that the evidence supports the guilt of the accused."</EM><BR/><BR/>Like Mrs. Steelman, our non-liberally religious cultural competitors are also convinced they've examined the evidence, and therefore have no compunction when it comes to ridiculing and condemning atheists. Unlike her, however, they're not much interested in listening to additional evidence and argument from such an "obviously tainted" source as the godless.<BR/><BR/>So, don't we end up with the situation we already have? The most vocal members of both camps using the tool of verbal condemnation on one another, with both sides convinced they've done their homework on the issues beforehand. I'm not saying you shouldn't call'em like you see'em, and stand up for your rights, just that I think this becomes a situation where the loudest voices often prevail or, at least, one group continues to prefer the shouting on Fox News and the other receives their dose of raised volume vocalization from MSNBC.<BR/><BR/>Anyway, go science! And if you disagree, you're a big dummy. Really; I've researched it.Steelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09612062887585525213noreply@blogger.com