--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > <snip> > > > But it did demonstrate one of my main points (thanks Sam > > > Harris) which is that religious ideas are held in a > > > protected class. They are shielded by people who don't > > > believe in them as if the people who believe them are > > > delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by > > > someone challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable > > > evidence. > > > > This is a crock, and Curtis knows it's a crock. > > No, your claiming it is a crock is a crock. You know > perfectly well what points this is in reference to and > it isn't the one you are providing.
Oh, what crap. Never did I say anything even remotely like what you claim above. > > Yesterday: > > > > Curtis: > > > > > That is the shield I am talking about. Claiming that > > > > > someone is out of line for questioning the claims of > > > > > religion as if they were any other claim we evaluate. > > > > > > Me: > > > > No, that isn't what I said. I said I thought it was > > > > pointless--impractical, ineffective--in the context of > > > > opposing bad behavior. > > > > > Curtis: > > > OK > > As you know Judy, your quote was not in the posts (or > part of the post) where you castigate me for mocking > religion. If you let it go at this statement I wouldn't > agree, but I couldn't accuse you of shielding religious > beliefs. But if you accuse me of using "insulting > language" you are doing exactly what I said above, > shielding the religious children from bad Curtis and > his mockery of their precious beliefs. Let's look at exactly what you said above: "[Religious beliefs] are shielded by people who don't believe in them as if the people who believe them are delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt by someone *challenging the idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence*" (emphasis added). Nothing about mockery or insults. You're referring there to challenging religious ideas epistemologically. And indeed, it's entirely possible to "challenge the idea as unsupported by reasonable evidence" *without being insulting*, without *mocking*. I've never "castigated" you for making epistemological challenges; I just don't think it works to remedy bad behavior. To "castigate" you for insulting and mocking has nothing to do with trying to shield religious beliefs from challenge. You're conflating two very different things in an attempt to mislead about your first misrepresentation--and blaming *me* for the conflation. That's really low, Curtis. I think *both* insults/mockery *and* straightforward epistemological challenge are counterproductive in the context of trying to change bad behavior. But the insults and the mockery are just mean, hostile smartass stuff; they even foul up the straightforward epistemological challenge by introducing exaggeration, oversimplification, and straw men, not to mention getting people's backs up so they're even less inclined to listen to a straightforward challenge. If you were George Carlin, maybe you could get away with it. But your mockery isn't funny enough to make the medicine go down, IMHO, even for mature adults. > You have gone way beyond the case you made above to > show your disapproval of my tone, my phrases, and > the fairness of my criticism from your point of view. Mockery and insults are unfair criticism virtually by definition. Yours certainly are. But what I've said has nothing to do with thinking believers are "delicate children whose feelings must not be hurt." You made that up out of whole cloth. As I said, it's a crock, and you knew it was a crock when you posted it. My position has to do with what works best to counter bad behavior, and unfair criticism of beliefs is even less likely to work than straightforward epistemological criticism, IMHO. > You were using personal shame as a sophist's trick to > mask a weak counterargument. Oh, brother. You sure as hell aren't in a position to call anybody a sophist. You're a dirty fighter, Curtis. You have been ever since I've known you. And that *is* a shame, because you're more than smart enough and tough enough to fight fair.
