"Learn" as used in R/T

[laconicsax]

This is somewhat old information, but since I've been seeing some new (to me) posters in R/T who may also visit here, here it is.

"Learn," when used in R/T means bolster one's own superstitious beliefs. If an event or source doesn't agree with the poster's own beliefs, then they may say that there's nothing they can "learn" from it.

[iris27]

1. And "civil discussion with atheists" means

"hear an atheist's story of experiencing ridiculous bigotry at the hands of a religious group, and instead of expressing sympathy, GO OFF on them for having dared to phrase their anecdote as 'I'm guessing this has never happened to you.'" Because, you know, how dare the atheist have had such arrogance and entitlement as to assume they know what has and hasn't happened to the poster!

*sigh*

[laconicsax]

2. Well don't you know?

Any story a non-Christian (atheist or otherwise) has about an experience with Christian bigotry is exaggerated, out of context, or just plain false.

I got bullied for being Jewish from 6th to 11th grades and of course I had to be making it up because Christians are good people.

[darkstar3]

3. No true Christian would EVER bully a Jew!1!

You just haven't seen my denomination, we accept everyone!!!!

Fucking blindness..

[vixengrl]

4. "Learning" seems to me to involve two processes-

the first being incorporating new data, and the second being throwing out outmoded assumptions that are not bolstered by the new data. Some people won't "learn" about evolution, climate change, or the evidence for inherent gender preference if it doesn't confirm their biases, and many liberals will recognize that as bullshit. They will quite earnestly say that facts matter, and that claims should have supporting evidence, and that cultural assumptions shouldn't take the place of sociological observations--they will be very reality-based where it counts for us politically, and of course I like anyone who is plugged into the reality-channel.

But I think that leaning does fall apart over religion. It's like there's a Gouldian non-overlapping magisteria--everything is material *but* where it touches theistic belief and the political issues of the human institutions of the churches of various theistic denominations. And we are outsiders there, I think, by self-selection. They don't want us on their mental real estate.

I try to understand it this way:

I myself lack the gene for tapping into what is exactly sacrosanct. There was a post that featured a popular food logo in a pun about Easter this weekend that I thought was innocent enough in R/T since it wasn't specifically offensive about the faith, just along parallel lines, but it was deleted. I guess I could say I didn't "learn" from that experience because I thought the joke was cute, not harmful, and haven't re-edited my assumptions yet because I'm not sure what the problem was. I can incorporate the data that someone found it offensive, but I'm at a loss to determine why they found it offensive except in a "Hey atheists get off of my lawn" kind of way. (But we have a shared culture, so the theists' lawn still feels like part of my neighborhood....hmmm analogy-fail?) And maybe that is the same process for theists. They can process that we don't believe, but can't quite incorporate how it is that we don't because they still identify with the assumptions we already reject.

(Oh, but then I'm leaving out people like Chris Hedges who don't believe in atheists or the people who think we believe but just hate god. So, maybe my definition of "learn" is too broad, and should mean, one can learn a lot about atheists without ever listening to anything they say, but when they start to say something....um, don't listen because it'll just muddy everything :evilgrin:)

[laconicsax]

5. The problem with Gould's NOMA is that it's a fantasy.

Religion makes specific, testable, claims about the universe and whenever science challenges it, it hides behind "faith" and apologists attack the reality-based community for overstepping their bounds.

Science is learning and, as you say, you can't learn if you're not willing to toss out your assumptions when the evidence contradicts them. Faith is an unwillingness to do just that.

Faith is antithetical to learning in a sense (you know, like completely or absolutely). Just don't mention it in R/T unless you're willing to rebut the same tired arguments again and again. Why do people who put up the same tired arguments about faith and learning being compatible keep doing it? Because their faith prevents them from learning that they're wrong.

[realisticphish]

6. i agree entirely

i really do not understand religious apologists.

I care in no way about someone's private beliefs. If you believe that God exists and is watching us, and heaven awaits us, then fine. But do NOT claim that there is any real, scientific, logical reason for that. So often, religious scientists do all kind of backflips trying to make the case for a coexistence between faith and science. But that's nonsense; a religious scientist can only admit that it is totally hypocritical, and acknowledge that their faith is based fully and totally on non-scientific reasons. If they do THAT, well sure. But that isn't coexisting. That's maintaining faith in SPITE of science.

[laconicsax]

7. The argument for the coexistence of religion and science is the same as...

...the argument for the coexistence of priesthood and child rape.

Some scientists are religious, therefore science and religion can coexist. The Templeton Foundation rewards those who demonstrate this. .
Some priests are rapists, therefore priesthood and child rape can coexist. The Vatican rewards those who demonstrate this.

[beam me up scottie]

8. R/T is looking like Romper Room more and more every day.

Nonbelievers have to constantly defend themselves against unfounded and paranoid accusations (our tyranny is ruining DU, the Rapture/SHIfT, and the lives of woos everywhere), repeatedly explain - in great detail - why atheism isn't a denial or rejection of gods, and post page after page of definitions from libraries around the world while the peanut gallery jumps up and down, flings feces and sticks their fingers in their ears going LALALALALALA*I*CAN'T*HEAR*YOU*LALALALALALA !!!1!!1

None of us has ever feigned innocence yet when we point out the hypocrisy of those who do, we're greeted with yips and yaps of "I know you are but what am I?".


sigh... anyone else ever wish Cthulhu was still around?