MSN: Humanists call for African age of 'Enlightenment'

[Destino]

Yes. And every one of your posts assumes, without any evidence, that the awful Humanists in this thread are Stalin and Mao come back to life. And what's more, you seem to imply that this is what alexey wants.

Just telling you how it looks from outside. I'm agnostic, and I'm generally very sympathetic to religious folks of good will.

I don't trust religious groups meeting with like minded individuals pointing at other religions as being the problem. What exactly is unreasonable about that stance? If they called a meeting of the minds welcoming all faiths seeking out moderate voices combat the extremism I'd be less suspicious. If Christians in the US held a conference to talk about honor killings among Muslims I would be suspicious as well. I'm sure you'd demand I chase down evidence then too.

As for alexey, I don't think he's a Stalinist.

---------- Post added November-16th-2012 at 10:23 PM ----------

Laws are just one piece of the puzzle. There are other pieces, but unfortunately you stated your disbelief in their existence:

- [questioning religion] can mean difficulty finding work, developing one's business, making friends and finding romantic relationships, [etc].
- The common perception is that if you do not believe in the existence of a god you must either be worshipping the devil or be an immoral person, not to be trusted.
- So often, people who break away from blind faith believe they are alone.

I thought we were talking about government? Either way I never denied those things existed I said that no group has the market of distrust cornered.

In theory, sure.

In practice, however, accusations of disrespect and unhumility are a natural refuge for those without good arguments, as well as a standard slandering practice against disbelievers.

sometimes those accusations are well deserved.

I think more than just "stating the case" is needed when encountering a deliberate campaign of disinformation.

of course you do. You believe religions should be actively combated right and not just on issues like evolution. Is that correct? I think I remember you staring as much. So are you going with the natural death strategy or something else?

[Jumbo]

I see faith/beliefs as high level popular psychology constructs. If you subscribe to these constructs, then you may insist that I and all other people necessarily have faith/beliefs. I do not subscribe to these constructs. I am saying that I do not have any faith or any beliefs and I am wondering how you could demonstrate otherwise.

You get to see whatever you want per those terms, no matter how far it departs from the vastly common and traditionally appropriate linguistic usage of those terms. This a perfect example of what I was saying about you often engaging in the same cognitive behaviors you chastise others for and it is also a move back to your penchant for making up definitions customized to alexy (and perhaps a few other people you've read and believe you understand).

I also isolated this paragraph, because it represents a common posting habit of yours. You'll make some fairly reasonable or thoughtful commentary (whether agreed with or not by whoever) mixed with what a reasonable, objective, and informed reader might appropriately judge as absolutely foolish absurdities.

Your first phrase I indict as essentially nonsensical and pretty much ridiculous. Those terms, and their complex constructs which reflect many basic forms of cognitive dynamics, have been around much longer than the framing you used to describe them. That description reads more more like "low level pop psychology" than not, to me.

I don't mean just "me" ala my life experience and general knowledge/philosophies acquired to date, but also "me" as a <just edited out a list of credentials in relevant areas, psychology predictably included since you mentioned the field, as I prefer as much anonymity as possible on the internet and avoid making claims of authority most of the time>.

Monday, for fun, I will do what I often do with tailgate material, and run it by some professional peers. Towards the end of the week I will do the same with a class of psych grad students and let you know the responses. I will even include two philosophy professors at a major academic institution.

I am not motivated to respond to the rest of what you wrote in that paragraph.

I am motivated to do this:

All these comments of mine generally encompass much else of what you have posted over time here on matters of religious nature. You don’t show the same issues in threads on politics or other topics. Even when featuring more science-based tangential matters like evolution in which we should, and otherwise do in non-religious threads, find copious common ground, in the religious threads you can get pretty "shaky" at times---factually, conceptually, and conduct-wise (not badly)---in your arguments.

I say all this as someone who identifies as also a very educated student of evolutionary theory and biology (certainly no PeterMP in that regard), am a strong supporter of it, and I also find it hard to "over-apply" it. I identify as agnostic, with an even stronger identification as not in alignment with all it means (according to the experts) to be of the Christian or Muslim or Judaism religions. And that's said with respect and more, in my case, not just implying condemnation and negatives. And I have an intense dislike for much typical fundamentalist religious thinking.

Yet I often (not always) find your arguments ones I don’t agree with or support, in terms of how you frame your actual positions and explain your reasoning. You regularly seem to be as (or moreso) convoluted, vague, and self-contradicting in logical form (another area I am quite well versed in) as some of those you castigate for the same.

Some things you post leave me with an even harsher view, both in terms of content of argument quality and of conduct at times---though you do a better job than some in that area and of avoiding actual rule violations. I have really appreciated your cooperation in those matters.

Your last paragraph is more a "fine wish" to me. I share some of your perceptions and all of the desire for best conversations--which can include stuff that isn't always warm-n-fuzzy. But your hoped-for scenarios will likely require some different behaviors from you, as well as others, for it to realize its full potential.

Now regardless of how all this taken by you any other reader, there's a reason I post all this, and it is relevant to the conversation here, and to the forum.

[PeterMP]

I think people tend to over apply evolution in terms of explanatory power of selective pressures on an evolutionary process.

When I was a grad student, we had to literature review presentations every year. My favorite thing to do was to take a paper on a directed evolutionary effort (scientists trying to make something set up an evolutionary system to produce it. You want to make something that detoxifies something you set up a system where you evolve something that detoxifies it.), but they didn't quite get out what they were trying to get out. You can always get something, but sometimes evolution gives you a solution you weren't looking for.

While human society is evolutinary in nature, it is easy to over apply evolution in terms of what selective pressure will/has caused what result in terms of the evolution of larger soceity. What will happen to society if we do X in terms of applying a selective pressure.

In addition, in terms of humans and human society, I think it is even more complex because I think there will be a relationship between things evolved in the system and their analysis of the system.

I think you see that w/ humans pretty easily. We think that western culture is "best". Those people living in Afghanistan think their "culture" is best.

[alexey]

You get to see whatever you want per those terms, no matter how far it departs from the vastly common and traditionally appropriate linguistic usage of those terms. This a perfect example of what I was saying about you often engaging in the same cognitive behaviors you chastise others for and it is also a move back to your penchant for making up definitions customized to alexy (and perhaps a few other people you've read and believe you understand).

I try to do the best that I can in both relying on traditional linguistic usage to communicate ideas and attempting to advance changes to the traditional linguistic usage that I think are worth advancing. That does not seem strange and I cannot recall chastising anybody for doing that. I may passionately oppose the content being advanced, but your unspecific comment seems to point at the mechanism rather then the content.

I also isolated this paragraph, because it represents a common posting habit of yours. You'll make some fairly reasonable or thoughtful commentary (whether agreed with or not by whoever) mixed with what a reasonable, objective, and informed reader might appropriately judge as absolutely foolish absurdities.

If I subscribe to foolish absurdities, and I keep them to myself, how can I hear from somebody who can help me? These discussions are not suitable for my social circles and so I try to bring them up here. Not everybody has access to professional colleagues with backgrounds in psychology/philosophy

Your first phrase I indict as essentially nonsensical and pretty much ridiculous. Those terms, and their complex constructs which reflect many basic forms of cognitive dynamics, have been around much longer than the framing you used to describe them. That description reads more more like "low level pop psychology" than not, to me.

Because these terms and their complex constructs reflect so many different basic forms of cognitive dynamics, they have little ability to meaningfully describe cognitive dynamics.

I don't mean just "me" ala my life experience and general knowledge/philosophies acquired to date, but also "me" as a <just edited out a list of credentials in relevant areas, psychology predictably included since you mentioned the field, as I prefer as much anonymity as possible on the internet and avoid making claims of authority most of the time>.

Monday, for fun, I will do what I often do with tailgate material, and run it by some professional peers. Towards the end of the week I will do the same with a class of psych grad students and let you know the responses. I will even include two philosophy professors at a major academic institution.

Quality of your posts makes listing of qualifications redundant... hopefully you will decide to share the results of Monday's survey.

This whole discussion seems a little strange to me because I do not see myself saying anything particularly controversial or going out on a limb in some way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#...logical_theory
"Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong and will be completely superseded by a radically different theory that will have no use for the concept of belief as we know it"
"Our common-sense understanding of belief is entirely wrong; however, treating people, animals, and even computers as if they had beliefs is often a successful strategy"

As far as I know those statements reflect positions of professionals who are respected in their fields, etc. I'm sure there are other professionals who disagree with them, sometimes passionately, etc, but I certainly do not see myself being all alone and going off the deep end on this, as you seem to suggest.

All these comments of mine generally encompass much else of what you have posted over time here on matters of religious nature. You don’t show the same issues in threads on politics or other topics. Even when featuring more science-based tangential matters like evolution in which we should, and otherwise do in non-religious threads, find copious common ground, in the religious threads you can get pretty "shaky" at times---factually, conceptually, and conduct-wise (not badly)---in your arguments.

I showed those same issues in political threads a few years back

I say all this as someone who identifies as also a very educated student of evolutionary theory and biology (certainly no PeterMP in that regard), am a strong supporter of it, and I also find it hard to "over-apply" it. I identify as agnostic, with an even stronger identification as not in alignment with all it means (according to the experts) to be of the Christian or Muslim or Judaism religions. And that's said with respect and more, in my case, not just implying condemnation and negatives. And I have an intense dislike for much typical fundamentalist religious thinking.

Yet I often (not always) find your arguments ones I don’t agree with or support, in terms of how you frame your actual positions and explain your reasoning. You regularly seem to be as (or moreso) convoluted, vague, and self-contradicting in logical form (another area I am quite well versed in) as some of those you castigate for the same.

Unfortunately I have limited contact with very educated students in these areas. I will be grateful for any feedback or comments that you can provide... although I am not sure what to do with such general ones.

I value this opportunity and I am not even joking. I considered PMing you at some point but couldn't figure out what to write.

[Jumbo]

alexy, I appreciate the general tone of your reply. Sometimes, I'll post lengthily in a manner of "take all this or not and do what you will with it" (with no aggressively challenging attitude intended). And then I'll move on for various reasons, with no attachment to any outcome of the post on my end.

If the outcome is positive for anyone (always my basic intention, but with little or no emotional investment), fine, if negative, fine, if null or a mix, fine. In this case, I will continue with a reply to most of your comments.

But I want the thread to resume on topic, and I do intend to also reply to PeterMP's post in the thread at some point, so I will extend my conversation with you in PM (there's zero for anyone to be concerned about).

Looking ahead at my plans time-wise (including doing other posting in various forums on ES as I have time, and allowing for a share of just fun and goofyass posting) it will likely be Tuesday before I get back to you on the previously mentioned matters.

Back to the topic, Africa is a vast continent with many different societies and cultures of an amazingly varied range of nature. I find it one of the most complicated large-scale environments to address when dealing with the horrors so endemic to some regions, and both the internal (localized) and international influences that are a part of it all, and have been for so long.

It's just such a damn big indigestible chunk of stuff. I truly believe it will take both a remarkable internal effort and leader-figures, as well as a very large and organized and focused international support movement. At this time, I see either as very marginal and advancing at a glacial pace, but hope they will continue an grow. I put personal resources behind this hope.

Religions are being bent in the service to do wrong by wrong-doers. I don't "hate on" religion because of this---but I can see, given the cultures in areas like Ghana, a potential value in emphasizing secularism at this point.

But that doesn't need to equal castigating or "blaming" Islam or Christianity for anything. Most any office, belief system, or institution can be used for good or ill, which is not to sat they are all equal in potential for either, or in ease of abuse. But I think this is complicated enough without getting into those areas for these matters.

At the same time the benefits of a secular approach are being emphasized---and can be done showing respect to those religions--the Imams and missionaries of those faiths can emphasize their teachings that reject violence, suffering, and atrocities and instead call for all productive behaviors so badly needed. They can fight the false messages being sent. There is no need for healthy secular and healthy religious efforts to be at war. They should unite against unhealthy versions of either, or at least not attack each other in fighting the unhealthy versions.