A Different Approach
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2012, 12:19 PM
RE: A Different Approach
Hey, fst.

Quote:This is relativism at it's best.

Why thank you. Flatterer Cool

Hey, Chas.

Firstly, you need to let go of this notion that you either attack them or they win. That's silly. I'm suggesting a change in strategy, not giving up. There's a HUGE difference.

The extremists can't take everything over without their power base. The reason they can hold on to their membership right now is because of the threat they are milking for all its worth. Robbing them of that is like robbing them of air.

I'm not Jesus. I can't lead anyone to the promise land. I'm just suggesting a new approach. What people do with that is up to their own creativity.

My primary suggestion though is just focus on your thing. Build.

People have to remember, cultures are in competition with each other just like species are in competition with each other. Ideas will ALWAYS be in competition with each other. If someone is looking to eradicate creationism, good luck with that. If someone is expecting to always come out on top every minute of every day, good luck with that. There's no eradicating creationism and there's certainly no eradicating extremists. All you can do is make it hard for extremists to recruit and easy for moderate creationists to access your ideas and/or live along side you. Do that, and the pressure comes off of YOU. Attacking makes it easy for them to recruit and make your life miserable, so if that's what you want, then by all means, press the assault. But it's not what people want. People want the extremists to go away. So do what works rather than what you're used to.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:21 PM
A Different Approach
I'm just shocked to learn you're a Dawkinsian. Shocking

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:25 PM
RE: A Different Approach
Did you mean Darwinist, because I don't think I mentioned Dawkins; although I do like me some Dawkins.

Dawkins is one of the world's foremost minds in biology, is the father of memetics and I base much of my work on his ideas.

As a social scientist; however, he sucks the sweat off a dead man's balls.

Yup. Straight shitty Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:27 PM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 12:25 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Did you mean Darwinist, because I don't think I mentioned Dawkins; although I do like me some Dawkins.

Probably a reference to memetics... seeing as how Dawkins was the one who coined the idea of a meme.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Red Celt's post
08-08-2012, 12:31 PM
A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 12:25 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Dawkins is one of the world's foremost minds in biology, is the father of memetics and I base much of my work on his ideas.

This is what I meant. Smile

And the "shock" was feigned, but pointed toward my understanding of your disapproval of the New Atheists.

Just yanking yer chain. Big Grin

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:36 PM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 12:19 PM)Ghost Wrote:  Hey, fst.

Quote:This is relativism at it's best.

Why thank you. Flatterer Cool

Hey, Chas.

Firstly, you need to let go of this notion that you either attack them or they win. That's silly. I'm suggesting a change in strategy, not giving up. There's a HUGE difference.

The extremists can't take everything over without their power base. The reason they can hold on to their membership right now is because of the threat they are milking for all its worth. Robbing them of that is like robbing them of air.

I'm not Jesus. I can't lead anyone to the promise land. I'm just suggesting a new approach. What people do with that is up to their own creativity.

My primary suggestion though is just focus on your thing. Build.

People have to remember, cultures are in competition with each other just like species are in competition with each other. Ideas will ALWAYS be in competition with each other. If someone is looking to eradicate creationism, good luck with that. If someone is expecting to always come out on top every minute of every day, good luck with that. There's no eradicating creationism and there's certainly no eradicating extremists. All you can do is make it hard for extremists to recruit and easy for moderate creationists to access your ideas and/or live along side you. Do that, and the pressure comes off of YOU. Attacking makes it easy for them to recruit and make your life miserable, so if that's what you want, then by all means, press the assault. But it's not what people want. People want the extremists to go away. So do what works rather than what you're used to.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt

So your argument is leaving theists alone, will prevent extremists from gaining power, and cause less grief for us?

or am I wrong?

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 12:39 PM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 11:10 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Atheism is a memeplex, or at least part of one. It is not the entirety of the system. It's a part. Like the break system in your car. If you yank out the brake system, your car doesn't work. It's completely intact, but it can't function properly without that system. But still, you might be able to get some use out of it. Now yank the engine, and it's a paperweight. Beautiful, pristine, not a scratch on it, but useless. The other quality of systems is that they are complex. So some Christians might think there's a God and if you yank that out, they might still be Christians. But when the God idea is absolute, when the articulations between it and the rest of the system run deep, yanking it out can collapse the system. It's like a keystone species in an ecosystem. Kill off the wrong one and the whole thing collapses.

Frankly, if you yank out the break system in your car, the car will still work - in fact it will keep going - probably go even faster and completely out of control. And then the only way to stop it is to run it into a tree and destroy it entirely. That would be an example of extremism in it's destructive perfection.

You also provide an example of yanking God out of the equation for a Christian, with their christianity possibly remaining intact. I've not really observed that situation, but maybe you have. From what I've observed, the "new trend" seems to be, "I hate religion, but love God/Jesus."

"It's like a keystone species in an ecosystem. Kill off the wrong one and the whole thing collapses." Sorry. The whole thing will not collapse. It will simply adapt to what's not there. Yes, it will take a long time and yes, will probably take down a lot of species in that area with it... but no. I implore you to use another argument than this to make your point, for this falls short of success.

(08-08-2012 11:10 AM)Ghost Wrote:  Now, the example I gave was of a Christian becoming an Atheist. You seem to have reversed that. But it still holds true. If you believe that everything has a natural explanation and then you meet God, that will likely collapse the fuck out of your worldview.

You were not at all clear on this in your original post. Many Christians becoming an Atheist ... I don't know, they seem pretty pissed off, to me. Just an observation.

As for me - a lifelong non-Theist; I think if a God showed up to me directly, it would be irrelevant... that just happens to be my world view. Not for everyone, I do realize.

(08-08-2012 11:10 AM)Ghost Wrote:  You're saying something that seems very emotionally charged and unrelated to what I'm talking about. I'm just talking about mechanics. Emotion doesn't factor into it anymore than it factors into addition or multiplication.

So, you are talking about the mechanics of someone's entire world view being completely obliterated but emotion doesn't factor into it? That might seem a bit presumptuous to some. What happens when emotion does factor into it?

I realize that extremists are at each end of the balancing stick. Is it so impossible to understand that "tit for tat" has become a way for many to keep that stick balancing? I'm pretty much on the outside looking in on the Atheist activist, but even I see this.

"As a general note, I could teach this as a class, so of course I'm speaking in very broad strokes." Huh
You really don't want to know what I think of that sentence.

Please understand, I'm trying to get what you are saying. Perhaps it's just not coming across very clearly. Strip it down; maybe not use so many words extrapolated from the latest Dawkins literature - and maybe consider the audience you might be addressing.

Thanks.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2012, 01:03 PM
RE: A Different Approach
Matt,

I'm trying to be responsive and constructive here. From your answer to my earlier post, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe others are also confused. Here's a couple of questions, in response to various statements in your follow-ups to others:

1. "I'm suggesting a change in strategy, not giving up" - what is your strategy intended to accomplish?

2. "Attacking makes it easy for them to recruit and make your life miserable, so if that's what you want, then by all means, press the assault. " - they (believers, churches, religions) already have it easy in recruiting (selling creationism) in that they are in a position of influence, have regular contact (through mass, services, other activities) and often run the primary educational program for many children, and if not primary ed, then religious ed. I doubt that attacking makes any real change in their ease of recruitment, any more than peeing in the ocean raises the sea level.

3. "Firstly, you need to let go of this notion that you either attack them or they win." - you've constructed a straw man of the darwinist being the attacker. I think much of this conflict arises at the point of a textbook debate, and darwinists trying keep textbooks from depicting a world that looks like the Flintstones. It seems to me that in the majority of cases it is the creationist/intelligent design crowd that is attacking the status quo scientific explanation.

Also, personally, when I read an argument that begins by defining a new paradigm (reality is not real), using new terms (actuality), and based on soft or controversial sciences (memetics) I grow suspicious that the strength of the argument lies in the convoluted nature of following it. I'm more readily persuaded by arguments that build from an accepted paradigm, use well-understood terms and are based on scientific principles that have been well established.

For right now I'd just have to say that I don't understand your case, but am trying to do so.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Jeff's post
08-08-2012, 01:08 PM
RE: A Different Approach
(08-08-2012 01:03 PM)Jeff Wrote:  Matt,

I'm trying to be responsive and constructive here. From your answer to my earlier post, I don't think I understand what you're trying to say. Maybe others are also confused. Here's a couple of questions, in response to various statements in your follow-ups to others:

1. "I'm suggesting a change in strategy, not giving up" - what is your strategy intended to accomplish?

2. "Attacking makes it easy for them to recruit and make your life miserable, so if that's what you want, then by all means, press the assault. " - they (believers, churches, religions) already have it easy in recruiting (selling creationism) in that they are in a position of influence, have regular contact (through mass, services, other activities) and often run the primary educational program for many children, and if not primary ed, then religious ed. I doubt that attacking makes any real change in their ease of recruitment, any more than peeing in the ocean raises the sea level.

3. "Firstly, you need to let go of this notion that you either attack them or they win." - you've constructed a straw man of the darwinist being the attacker. I think much of this conflict arises at the point of a textbook debate, and darwinists trying keep textbooks from depicting a world that looks like the Flintstones. It seems to me that in the majority of cases it is the creationist/intelligent design crowd that is attacking the status quo scientific explanation.

Also, personally, when I read an argument that begins by defining a new paradigm (reality is not real), using new terms (actuality), and based on soft or controversial sciences (memetics) I grow suspicious that the strength of the argument lies in the convoluted nature of following it. I'm more readily persuaded by arguments that build from an accepted paradigm, use well-understood terms and are based on scientific principles that have been well established.

For right now I'd just have to say that I don't understand your case, but am trying to do so.

I agree sir.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
08-08-2012, 01:42 PM
RE: A Different Approach
Hey, fst.

Not Theists, extremists. It won't just prevent them from gaining power, it will erode the power they currently have.

Hey, Kim.

Collapse simply means a the cessation of function of a system.

If your heart stops beating, your biological system collapses.

If all of the gasoline in the world disappeared tomorrow, the entire transportation infrastructure of the planet would collapse. The cars wouldn't run, the trucks, the planes. There might be a few horse and buggies left, but they could not pick up the slack immediately. The effect would either be the death of humanity (due to empty supermarkets) or a totally new (and different) transportation system springing up in it's place. This is called punctuated equilibrium. But that initial cessation of function is considered a collapse.

For example, asteroid strikes Earth, wastes the dinosaurs. That's a collapse. The entire biosphere had intimate links with dinosaurs. When they died, everything changed. And the mammals rose. Now mammals rule the planet. Things move on, they move forward, but the parts of the system changed entirely.

Similarly, your reality construct is a complex system that only works because all of the parts are working together. If you introduce an idea that makes it impossible for those ideas to work together, then the system will collapse. It doesn't mean another one won't spring up, it does mean that the transition period is going to suck.

For example, my friend's father was a pious French-Canadian Catholic who loved the church, loved being a Catholic and who gave a significant portion of his salary to the church his whole life. One year, he decided to go to the Vatican. On the tour, he found a room made entirely of gold. The idea "my money goes to the church and does good" was instantly replaced with "these fuckers have a gold room". Poof. Collapse. No more Catholicism for him.

Quote:So, you are talking about the mechanics of someone's entire world view being completely obliterated but emotion doesn't factor into it?

Why would it? People don't get emotional when discussing the effects of mold on grout or that 2+2=4.

Quote:I realize that extremists are at each end of the balancing stick. Is it so impossible to understand that "tit for tat" has become a way for many to keep that stick balancing?

I understand vengeance. But that's irrelevant here.

Hey, Jeff.

1 - Do you want extremist creationists all up in your grill? No? Perfect. Do this, everything about them shrinks. It won't eradicate them, but neither will the attack strategy. At least this way you wind up with less of them rather than more.

2 - Like I said, every memeplex has a moderate version and an extremist version (it's a range). The memeplex is there. Full stop. So the question is, do you want to contribute to the growth of the extremist version or the moderate version? Do you want them to know and understand you and live next to you or do you want them to hate your fucking guts?

3 - Relax, brother, I haven't constructed anything. If you want to sit there are suggest that only one person punches in a fist fight, you go right ahead. But we both know that's not the case. This isn't about who stated it or who's in the right or who's to blame. That's kindergarten stuff. This is about looking at a situation and assessing what works, what doesn't and why, so that a better strategy can be conceived and implemented.

Quote:Also, personally, when I read an argument that begins by defining a new paradigm (reality is not real), using new terms (actuality), and based on soft or controversial sciences (memetics) I grow suspicious that the strength of the argument lies in the convoluted nature of following it. I'm more readily persuaded by arguments that build from an accepted paradigm, use well-understood terms and are based on scientific principles that have been well established.

That's your prerogative. But I know this stuff. I know the supports for it and I know the arguments against it. I've done the footwork. If you don't trust the argument I present and my supports, such is life. I am, however, very confident in the strength of my argument. And personally, I believe if all we did was trust in what's come before and ignored all further innovation and insight that we'd still be using stones.

You don't have to just take my word for it. There are plenty of supports. I, like any good scientist, invite you to look into my claims. If you find a glitch, fantastic, we can ameliorate it. If you find corroboration and learn to trust my argument, all the better. But do us both a favour, don't just call it convoluted and try and dismiss it out of hand. Follow the argument and the supports and judge off of that.

And I never said reality is not real. I said it was the result of the culturally contingent relationship between actuality and meaning Cool

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: