Label me if you must [Archive]

View Full Version : Label me if you must

RSL's better half

29th August 2009, 06:50 PM

I know that most of you, including my husband, label me a "woo." I never quite fit into the categories other folks put me in, and am proud of that actually.

I am Christian, in that I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is my salvation. However, my father taught me never to believe just from what someone else told me. If I was going to accept the Bible to base my life on, I should read the scripture others quote to me for myself and make my own interpretation. I don't "practice" Christianity, I live it - or at least I try to. Being a sinner (and a former sailor), I often fall short.

My father, however, and his family, were the ones who taught me the "woo" of ESP. His family accepted psychic ability, as well as telepathy, telekenisis (sp?), mind reading, ghosts, etc. He only made it to the eighth grade (never finished), but he was an extremely intelligent person. He was very well-read, and very inquisitive. He was also highly cynical and skeptical about many, many things. He studied many religions looking for "the truth." He even dabbled in transendental meditation before he died in 1972. He was a man I respected and trusted completely.

I was 17 and a "born-again Christian" (though I never quite fit that label) when he died. Perhaps our relationship would have evolved a bit as I got older, who knows? It has only been in recent years that I have begun to question things he said to me, taught me. I've even gotten angry with him for telling me certain things I don't think you should ever tell your child. I have since come to forgive him for being human and flawed.

It has been my experience that if you generalize about people, if you lump them into various categories, some of us will make you look a bit foolish when it is evident that we do not fit the mold you've made. I know that my husband uses the term "woo" in my case to describe certain behaviors I have had. After knowing me for more than 7 years, he definitely knows I don't always fit into a category.

Cavemonster

29th August 2009, 07:22 PM

You sound like a very nice person, and I'm sure you're an intelligent person, but nothing you've said shows you don't fit well into the category of "woos".

The hardest core homeopaths and conspiracy theorists and bigfoot trackers read the material for themselves. What differentiates what folks around here like to (sometimes a bit harshly) call "woo thinking" from rational thinking isn't a failure to investigate, it's a failure to investigate rigorously and free from obvious emotion driven or fallacious logic.

Now you may have reasons for believing in God and psychics and ghosts that are logical and evidence based. If you do, we'd love to hear them because no such evidence has yet come to light anywhere else.

But don't stress about it too much, some of my favorite people believe in past lives and quack remedies. They are wonderful, amazing, smart people who I love... and they are "woos" who fit the category quite clearly.

athon

29th August 2009, 07:34 PM

I've never much liked the term woo, or how many skeptics see fit to throw all people who believe in something paranormal or pseudoscientific into the same social category. I will admit, I've used to term myself on occasion as a shorthand with others who might share my views, yet admit it's not a good habit to have.

Basically, the thinking that leads people such as yourself into having religious faith, belief in ESP, or other forms of pseudoscience is the default of how we think. More than simply being the natural course of thinking, it's how our brains are wired. We resist criticising the beliefs of those we love and trust and we have a hard time thinking they might have come to the wrong conclusion, lie, misunderstand or embrace a belief out of a desperate need.

The problem with the word 'woo' is that it groups all such believers under a heading that has connotations of a deficiency in intelligence or mental acuity. It's as if there is something wrong with their heads. To me, this creates a barrier to effective education, impeding a search of finding potential ways of communicating better and is effectively a pseudoscience in itself, creating hypocrisy.

I might not have the same conclusions as you, RSLBH, but I can certainly sympathise with how you arrived at them.

Athon

Fnord

29th August 2009, 07:42 PM

Dear Mrs. Lancaster,

Judging by how you've stood by your husband through the most trying time of his life (and yours), I would not label you as a "woo" ... more like a "Woo-HOO!!!"

"An excellent wife, who can find? For her worth is far above jewels. The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain. She does him good and not evil all the days of her life."

May God bless you abundantly, Mrs. Lancaster!

-Fnord

ExMinister

29th August 2009, 08:03 PM

I kind of like the word "woo" actually. I have used that word a lot over the last 2 years when describing various of my own "woo" behaviors or beliefs. It covers a lot, I guess. But you are right that most people do not fall into categories neatly, "woo" or otherwise, and we are all very different.

You and Robert are the best! As I just said in his thread, which I thought was quite beautiful, you guys are so well suited to each other. You, just as you are, seem exactly the right match for your Robert, and it seems he knows that too. :)

RSLancastr

29th August 2009, 08:03 PM

EeneyMinnieMoe

29th August 2009, 08:12 PM

Susan, I have to say that I have no idea what your husband is talking about. :) In all the time you have been posting here, aside from the obvious subject of psychics and mediums (and one in particular...), you have only mentioned ghosts, telepathy, etc. once before. Well, maybe twice or three times. That's it. And it was to say that you were doubtful of them!

Aside from religion, it sounds like your belief in the paranormal was vague and not very committed. From what I understand, you never ghost hunted or spent money on psychics. It sounds as if you believed it was true but it wasn't one of your hobbies to start with.

I was the same way. I believed in some woo, sort of believed in others, was "on the fence" about other types of woo and was skeptical of some other types- but I never went farther than buying Tarot cards and reading books about UFOs.

When I learned of skepticism and learned the explanations of paranormal claims, I was shocked by some of the things I learned...and not so shocked by others.

I sort of knew the Loch Ness monster wasn't real and didn't need to be told that Mozart CDs for babies were nonsense and shrugged at the news that JFK conspiracy theories aren't real, for instance, but the things I learned about ghosts really were rug-pulled-out-under-your-feet. Some of it was an eye opener, some of it wasn't.

shadron

29th August 2009, 08:36 PM

Please realize that this is just an Internet forum, and while we do hang together a lot, it is not the end-all of anyone's existance.

My Dad, as agnostic a person who ever lived, was also a union man. Being a union man almost required that he also be a Democrat, which he is to this day. He believes in the traditional liberal causes, he is just about as deeply liberal as anyone can be; for example, he has befriended several homosexuals of both sexes, and helped them when they needed it. He had several friends, among who was the wife of his longest co-worker. She was a Republican, born and bred, who supported all the conservative causes. The two of them used to get in knock-down, drag-out arguments about politics, to the exclusion and the amusement of everyone else in the room. They both enjoyed it immensely.

I see this forum in the same way. I've had arguments with libertarians, conservatives, religious, and others. I've tried to never allowed it to drag me to the point of making any judgments about the persons that I could help. I've never allowed their obstinance or my pig-headedness come between conversing civilly about anything we can agree upon. That's what I try to do; use this forum in the same way that my Dad used his conversations, to get to know others better and to enrich my life.

If you should ever make an issue of your religion, then I would assume that you expect (and look forward to) a lively conversation. I'll also certainly respect your silence, and from your actions over the last year I, like others, have come to respect your loyalty and your sense of duty. In our limited way, we're here for you, as you are here for us, and we all profit.

Apathia

29th August 2009, 08:39 PM

I never use "woo" as a discripter of persons.
And I'm not of the mindset that finds being a Christian something unclean.
If an individual's religious beliefs are what opens his or her heart to Love and Compassion, I don't balk at or mess with a good thing.
So no lables for you!

I second Fnord's post!

rjh01

29th August 2009, 11:05 PM

I would not worry too much. Some people need religion for some reason. I think we need to accept that fact.

UncaYimmy

30th August 2009, 12:02 AM

I would not worry too much. Some people need religion for some reason. I think we need to accept that fact.

Nobody "needs" religion in a strict sense. Humans survived for a long time without it. It might fulfill a psychological "need" but there are certainly alternatives.

In practical, everyday life (including this discussion board and religious people "witnessing" to us), how does "accepting" that some people "need" religion manifest itself? I don't understand what you mean.

EeneyMinnieMoe

30th August 2009, 12:45 AM

Nobody "needs" religion in a strict sense. Humans survived for a long time without it.

That's not true. The exact reverse is true. Religion is amazingly universal. It has existed in some form or another in every single human society. Just as some superstition is universal. As are things like holidays, customs, rites, forms of marriage, systems of law, games, systems of education and so on. However complex, however primitive, however small a role they play, however big a role they play, they are what all civilizations have in common. Ask any cultural anthropologist.

Apparently, we do need it as a species. We can overcome it, sure, but we do need it on some level. In a Penn and Teller episode, a scientist who debunks ESP says that the concept of mind over matter and amazing abilities is something "Humans want to believe- need to believe. " And this is the point of view of an individual who thinks it is hokum.

There are lots of things we need to believe or need to do that are questionable. Or can be both good and bad and neither good nor bad.

To steal an argument from Sam Harris, we need to procreate and this leads some people to commit rape and incest and to sexually harass. This is perfectly "natural" (animals too are known to rape and commit incest) and is the flip side of a coin (love making is sometimes good, sometimes neutral and sometimes an act of evil) but that doesn't mean it's moral.

rjh01

30th August 2009, 12:46 AM

You partly answer your first point yourself. For some people it would be a fulfill a psychological or a social "need", or any other type of need. Yes there are alternatives but that is the one they have chosen.

Trying to convert these people is too hard. I mean if Robert (who knows how to do these things, evidence is his website) cannot convince Susan, his wife, to change religion, what hope have the rest of us? You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink it. In other words you can show them their beliefs are wrong (e.g. Robert's website), but it is up to them to accept ignore or reject the evidence (Sylvia Browne still has some followers who know about the website). If they do not accept the evidence do you reject them (tell them 'I do not want to see you again, do not contact me again')? If they continue to be your friend then you must accept that they have certain beliefs. And in return they accept that you have different ones.

Edit. Plus what EeneyMinnieMoe said.

UncaYimmy

30th August 2009, 01:01 AM

That's not true. The exact reverse is true. Religion is amazingly universal. It has existed in some form or another in every single human society.
Evidence? How long after homo sapiens arrived on the scene did it develop a language? How long after that did it invent a religion? Why do no other species on the planet need it? How did we evolve this need?

thaiboxerken

30th August 2009, 01:05 AM

It seems to be a giant leap to conclusion that since religion is very, very old and in most cultures that religion is needed by humans. The Japanese seem to be doing well without religion. Most of them are non religious.

UncaYimmy

30th August 2009, 01:14 AM

YTrying to convert these people is too hard. I mean if Robert (who knows how to do these things, evidence is his website) cannot convince Susan, his wife, to change religion, what hope have the rest of us?
Are you restricting this to just Susan? I'm not clear on that because below it seems you are talking about anyone.

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink it. In other words you can show them their beliefs are wrong (e.g. Robert's website), but it is up to them to accept ignore or reject the evidence (Sylvia Browne still has some followers who know about the website). If they do not accept the evidence do you reject them (tell them 'I do not want to see you again, do not contact me again')? If they continue to be your friend then you must accept that they have certain beliefs. And in return they accept that you have different ones.
So, you're saying we should "accept" it after first attempting "enlighten" them otherwise? Again, please clarify how I and my hypothetical friend "accept" the beliefs of the other. Are you saying to never discuss it again after the first discussion? I don't want to get all "Webster's Dictionary" on you, but "accept" has a lot of different definitions. I don't know which you are using.

I am not arguing that each individual situation isn't unique nor am I telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Your lack of clarity seems to implying the opposite, which is to say you have the "right formula" is to "accept" someone's religion no matter what. I'm not sure I agree with that given any of the definitions of accept.

rjh01

30th August 2009, 01:45 AM

Are you restricting this to just Susan? I'm not clear on that because below it seems you are talking about anyone.

So, you're saying we should "accept" it after first attempting "enlighten" them otherwise? Again, please clarify how I and my hypothetical friend "accept" the beliefs of the other. Are you saying to never discuss it again after the first discussion? I don't want to get all "Webster's Dictionary" on you, but "accept" has a lot of different definitions. I don't know which you are using.

I am not arguing that each individual situation isn't unique nor am I telling people what they should or shouldn't do. Your lack of clarity seems to implying the opposite, which is to say you have the "right formula" is to "accept" someone's religion no matter what. I'm not sure I agree with that given any of the definitions of accept.

No, I am just using Susan as an example. Nothing more.

OK if you do not like the word accept because it is ambiguous that is OK. I will try to say to put my view without using that word. I am just trying to say is what do you do with a friend (of any sort) that has beliefs (of any sort) that are different from yours?
- You can continue to be their friend
- You can tell them you cease to be your friend.

If you continue to be their friend then they come as a package. You can try to tell them do not discuss religion (or other beliefs), but you cannot tell them to pretend to be someone else. That is all I am saying.

Other notes.
It is not important or even relevant that you try to convert them. I do agree that what you do is different for every case. What I am saying is only a over simplification of reality. I am sure people could write a book on the subject.

I like your style of posting. Much better than other people's style's. You are attempting to get me to clarify what I am trying to say without telling me I am wrong.

Must rush, dinner is ready.

arthwollipot

30th August 2009, 01:55 AM

In my opinion, religion only becomes "woo" when people do stupid things because of it. That doesn't describe you.

De_Bunk

30th August 2009, 02:06 AM

RSL's better half...

I don't care...Woo or not...I respect the relationship that you and Rob have, with two totally opposing viewpoints...and you're still loving and caring for each other...

To me, that would be a nightmare relationship...But you and Rob made it work...

I cannot argue or disrespect that fact...

You're ok in my mind...You may believe in a big invisible being that lives in the sky...But hey,..You're still ok...

:)

DB

MikeSun5

30th August 2009, 02:23 AM

I am Christian, in that I believe in God and that Jesus Christ is my salvation. However, my father taught me never to believe just from what someone else told me.

...yet you believe it anyway... and for that you probably should be labeled as "a woo." No matter how cool your family is. ;)

The problem with personal interpretations of religious texts is that people will cherry pick stuff they like to support their previously held beliefs (ie: stuff someone else told you), and reject anything that doesn't support them. If you condition yourself to that type of "research" early on, you'll most likely apply the same method when you "research" other topics like ESP, ghosts, etc. When that cherry picking method starts to tackle subjects like homeopathy, it can get dangerous.

Stellafane

30th August 2009, 07:23 AM

"There are many ways to the top of the mountain. But the view is the same."

Foolmewunz

30th August 2009, 07:47 AM

Susan/Robert,
There are a few of us here who are in for the I Married A Woo sweepstakes. My significant other is buddhist, but also believes in a lot of the traditional folk woo of the northern Thais (Lao speaking). She doesn't base her life on or set her clock by them, but she's pretty much steeped in the culture since birth and accepts ghosts and spirits and such without any question.
And I love her dearly.

We have a deal with our son. She can take him off to temples and whatnot, but when he's old enough to talk and listen and understand, she's equally not to interfere with me giving him a full understanding of my atheist (lack of) beliefs. I'm not trying to win him over - it'll be up to him - but I want him to be exposed to both sides of the discussion.

RSL's better half

30th August 2009, 11:00 AM

RSL's better half

30th August 2009, 11:05 AM

In my opinion, religion only becomes "woo" when people do stupid things because of it. That doesn't describe you.

Agreed, Arth! I only used the wo label because of her former beliefs in psychics.

Moochie

30th August 2009, 11:14 AM

Like many here I've used the term "woo" -- usually to describe some belief or other that someone holds that is irrational or just plumb strange. But hey, I'm 59 now and I wasn't always as skeptical as I might be today. While I don't think I was ever deeply woo -- like many, I followed the motions because that was the thing to do -- I did look at astrology and some other "new age" stuff during my "hippie" years. It was also during my "hippie" years that I met a large rural family of Christians who to me seemed like the most fabulous people I had ever met, and they were the complete opposite to some of the caricatured "Christians" one happens upon here from time to time. In almost forty years I have never forgotten those people, such is the depth of the impression they made on me. If all people of faith were as those folk, the world would be a far better place than it is, IMO.

Judge not lest ye be judged seems like a pretty good maxim, I think.

M.

Professor Yaffle

30th August 2009, 11:17 AM

Susan, you seem to be channelling Robert again...
;)

Beth

30th August 2009, 11:49 AM

I never use the term woo because, to me, it comes across as derogatory and prejudicial. Like talking about n****** or k**** or b******. At some point in my life, long ago, I decided that I wouldn't call people names. I agree with Susan about labels, among many other things. I have been utterly impressed by the depth of her commitment to Robert and her willingness to share with the community here about his illness and recovery and the toll it has taken on them. I think that nearly everyone posting on this forum has nothing but the highest regard for both Robert and Susan and what they have accomplished.

Congratulations to you both for seeing and appreciating the tremendous individual that each of you are.

Incidentally, I have a cousin who met her spouse through match.com. She highly recommends it. They are married and have a 2 month old baby girl now.

UncaYimmy

30th August 2009, 01:27 PM

If you continue to be their friend then they come as a package. You can try to tell them do not discuss religion (or other beliefs), but you cannot tell them to pretend to be someone else. That is all I am saying.
Fair enough. Reminds me of a story. My friend's sister, who is quite religious. always seemed to need financial help. My friend is quite successful in the automotive business. He'd help her out financially and gave her several cars over the years. While his sister stopped trying to preach to him shortly after her conversion many years ago, my friend did get a little sick and tired of his sister saying, "Every time I need help, God provides for me."

He'd say, "God didn't provide for you. I did. I sunk my life savings into starting a busines and work 60 to 80 hours a week to make it a success, which is how I can afford to help you. That wasn't God. That was me."

I think it's very difficult to make something like religion a non-issue in a relationship.

I like your style of posting. Much better than other people's style's. You are attempting to get me to clarify what I am trying to say without telling me I am wrong.
It's not that. Truth is that www.StopRJH01.com is already taken!

Maia

30th August 2009, 01:52 PM

Well, when you get right down to it, a lot of the appeal of internet posting can be that it seems to simplify issues so much. But it really doesn't, and it definitely doesn't simplify people. It's important to remember that genuine and complex human beings are sitting on the other side of those keyboards, and that they can't be reduced to stereotypes based on their beliefs about certain issues.

UncaYimmy

30th August 2009, 03:08 PM

skeen

30th August 2009, 03:54 PM

Superstition is superstition; be it psychics, homeopaths, Jesus, and in another collective term: woo. I just wanted to say that.

rjh01

30th August 2009, 03:54 PM

It's not that. Truth is that www.StopRJH01.com is already taken!

Your link does not work. It almost was taken as I did think about creating it myself, to stop other people creating it.
Ref: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2635277#post2635277

RSL's better half

30th August 2009, 04:09 PM

You sound like a very nice person, and I'm sure you're an intelligent person, < snip >

What differentiates what folks around here like to (sometimes a bit harshly) call "woo thinking" from rational thinking isn't a failure to investigate, it's a failure to investigate rigorously and free from obvious emotion driven or fallacious logic.

Thanks for the initial compliment. The second part I snipped seems to conclude, however, that if I have beliefs I'm not thinking rationally. And, as for "emotion driven logic," I get more of that from atheists who become extremely angry with me for not sharing their beliefs (or lack of) than I have ever heard from a Christian. The type of Christian I have read about on these forums (usually by an angry atheist who believes the Christian is an imbecile and extremely unintelligent). The first time I met Ducky I had read a post of his about an insensitive supposed-Christian he had met on a bus. Those few give the rest of us a bad name. I walked up to Ducky and said, "I'd like to do what that other Christian you met should have done." I gave him a huge hug, being careful not to squeeze too hard.

I'm afraid the intent of my post was not clear. It was a response to Robert's post about marrying a "woo."

<snip>

The problem with the word 'woo' is that it groups all such believers under a heading that has connotations of a deficiency in intelligence or mental acuity. It's as if there is something wrong with their heads. To me, this creates a barrier to effective education, impeding a search of finding potential ways of communicating better and is effectively a pseudoscience in itself, creating hypocrisy.

I might not have the same conclusions as you, RSLBH, but I can certainly sympathise with how you arrived at them.

Athon

Thank you, Athon. What I meant to respond to was being labeled as anything. Whether it be "woo," "Christian," "New Ager," whatever, I just don't always fit.

Dear Mrs. Lancaster,

Judging by how you've stood by your husband through the most trying time of his life (and yours), I would not label you as a "woo" ... more like a "Woo-HOO!!!"

May God bless you abundantly, Mrs. Lancaster!

-Fnord

Thank you, Fnord! I hope you are equally blessed!

I kind of like the word "woo" actually. I have used that word a lot over the last 2 years when describing various of my own "woo" behaviors or beliefs. It covers a lot, I guess. But you are right that most people do not fall into categories neatly, "woo" or otherwise, and we are all very different.

You and Robert are the best! As I just said in his thread, which I thought was quite beautiful, you guys are so well suited to each other. You, just as you are, seem exactly the right match for your Robert, and it seems he knows that too. :)

Not only do I not fall "neatly" into categories, I usually have to really stretch the definition of a category to make it fit ME. The only categories I fit into are ones my mind has no control over - like "woman" or "caucasion."

Hey there, my Booful woo! You of course know that I named my thread "I married a woo" just to get a reaction out of you...

I had intended to include in my thread a paragraph or two about your dad's impact on your beliefs, as well as your mom's passing's impact on you. thanks for filling in the blank.

I had asked Robert not to mention my family in his thread. My father was a walking contradiction. In most things, he did not blindly believe anything. He claimed special "powers," however, when it came to his family and ESP. He even bought a "Kreskin's ESP Game" during my early teens to see if I shared the family "gifts." It was because I knew he thought critically in most other cases, I think, that for many years I blindly believed the ESP stories.

The night my father died, just hours before his accident, we had a discussion about how I was being pressured to "witness" to people on the street and I was not comfortable with it. It was the first time I learned how my dad's belief systems had evolved. He told me that, unlike me, when he died Jesus nor anyone else would come between him and "the head man himself." I like to think that when he died that night he went straight to "the head man," and then he probably challenged Him to game of chess! His mother, however, who lived in Colorado while we lived in California, when told of his death the next morning, responded with "I know. He came to say goodbye to me last night . . . just before 11." My aunt swore she never told Gramma what time he died (10:50 pm). Let's just say, I am now a bit "skeptical."

< snip >
From what I understand, you never ghost hunted or spent money on psychics. It sounds as if you believed it was true but it wasn't one of your hobbies to start with. < snip >

Nope.

Please realize that this is just an Internet forum, and while we do hang together a lot, it is not the end-all of anyone's existance.

My Dad, as agnostic a person who ever lived, was also a union man. Being a union man almost required that he also be a Democrat, which he is to this day. He believes in the traditional liberal causes, he is just about as deeply liberal as anyone can be; for example, he has befriended several homosexuals of both sexes, and helped them when they needed it. He had several friends, among who was the wife of his longest co-worker. She was a Republican, born and bred, who supported all the conservative causes. The two of them used to get in knock-down, drag-out arguments about politics, to the exclusion and the amusement of everyone else in the room. They both enjoyed it immensely.

I see this forum in the same way. I've had arguments with libertarians, conservatives, religious, and others. I've tried to never allowed it to drag me to the point of making any judgments about the persons that I could help. I've never allowed their obstinance or my pig-headedness come between conversing civilly about anything we can agree upon. That's what I try to do; use this forum in the same way that my Dad used his conversations, to get to know others better and to enrich my life.

If you should ever make an issue of your religion, then I would assume that you expect (and look forward to) a lively conversation. I'll also certainly respect your silence, and from your actions over the last year I, like others, have come to respect your loyalty and your sense of duty. In our limited way, we're here for you, as you are here for us, and we all profit.

Unlike the "Christians" I have read about in these forums, I do not push my beliefs on anyone. Nor do I debate it any more. As for my loyalty to my husband, that has little to do with my faith and more to do with the fact that I love the man.

I never use "woo" as a discripter of persons.
And I'm not of the mindset that finds being a Christian something unclean.
If an individual's religious beliefs are what opens his or her heart to Love and Compassion, I don't balk at or mess with a good thing.
So no lables for you!

I second Fnord's post!

Yay! Thank you, Apathia!

RSL's better half...

I don't care...Woo or not...I respect the relationship that you and Rob have, with two totally opposing viewpoints...and you're still loving and caring for each other...

To me, that would be a nightmare relationship...But you and Rob made it work...

I cannot argue or disrespect that fact...

You're ok in my mind...You may believe in a big invisible being that lives in the sky...But hey,..You're still ok...

:)

DB

Thaaaannnks . . . I think. :)

...yet you believe it anyway... and for that you probably should be labeled as "a woo." No matter how cool your family is. ;)

The problem with personal interpretations of religious texts is that people will cherry pick stuff they like to support their previously held beliefs (ie: stuff someone else told you), and reject anything that doesn't support them. If you condition yourself to that type of "research" early on, you'll most likely apply the same method when you "research" other topics like ESP, ghosts, etc. When that cherry picking method starts to tackle subjects like homeopathy, it can get dangerous.

You are assuming much, Mike. You don't know me, yet you judge and label me. What would you call me if our positions were reversed?

Like many here I've used the term "woo" -- usually to describe some belief or other that someone holds that is irrational or just plumb strange. But hey, I'm 59 now and I wasn't always as skeptical as I might be today. While I don't think I was ever deeply woo -- like many, I followed the motions because that was the thing to do -- I did look at astrology and some other "new age" stuff during my "hippie" years. It was also during my "hippie" years that I met a large rural family of Christians who to me seemed like the most fabulous people I had ever met, and they were the complete opposite to some of the caricatured "Christians" one happens upon here from time to time. In almost forty years I have never forgotten those people, such is the depth of the impression they made on me. If all people of faith were as those folk, the world would be a far better place than it is, IMO.

Judge not lest ye be judged seems like a pretty good maxim, I think.

M.

I agree.

Well, when you get right down to it, a lot of the appeal of internet posting can be that it seems to simplify issues so much. But it really doesn't, and it definitely doesn't simplify people. It's important to remember that genuine and complex human beings are sitting on the other side of those keyboards, and that they can't be reduced to stereotypes based on their beliefs about certain issues.

Thank you! You really got what I was trying to say.

EeneyMinnieMoe

30th August 2009, 09:02 PM

There's also such a thing as agreeing to disagree and treating each other with mutual respect. Also such a thing as agreeing "not to go there" and being able to openly discuss and talk about something without it becoming a debate or an argument.

When an atheist or agnostic is confronted by a person who is religious and is urged by them to repent their "wrong beliefs", they are offended, want to be left alone and argue that it's wrong to force your point of view on someone else and that it is something you should keep to yourself.

The reverse situation should be treated the same way. If you have a Christian or other friend and you confront them about their beliefs when they haven't been bothering you and try to make them see why it's a "wrong belief", they are offended, want to be left alone and certainly should argue that it's wrong to force your point of view on someone else and that it is something you should keep to yourself.

Sometimes it's just pointless to fight since no one's mind will be changed and all it will do is create a lot of bad feelings. Both parties should agree to mostly keep it off the table.

rjh01

31st August 2009, 12:23 AM

Exactly my point I was trying to make above, EeneyMinnieMoe. But you say it so much better.

Aitch

31st August 2009, 06:43 AM

Agreed, Arth! I only used the wo label because of her former beliefs in psychics.

Don't you mean woe? :duck:

Anyway, re the OP.

I, as officially nominated Chief Thingy of the Society of Thingies, Wossnames and Doo-Dahs, officially give you, Mrs Lancaster, the label: RSL's Better Half, mother of none/some/all* of his children and an all round good egg.

Right, that's done. Pay the man on your way out; no credit cards and 10% discount for cash.

Have a nice day.

Next!

* delete where not applicable.

Ashles

31st August 2009, 11:21 AM

I don't like the term woo and never use it. So I won't define my position it in that sense as the term can be interpreted differently.

A paranormal belief is a belief in something without evidence that, if true, would require drastic alteration of our current understanding of how the unverse operates (which doesn't mean it isn't true, just that there is curently no evidence for it).

And belief in a god is no different to any others in that status.

It is a belief reached in the absence of any evidence for it, based solely on the stories of others. It doesn't deserve special status. I see no more reason to believe in a god than in telekinesis, psychic abilty, ESP or the Loch Ness Monster.

I never quite fit into the categories other folks put me in, and am proud of that actually.

Many people feel exactly the same way (maybe even most people - I certainly feel the same way), but it doesn't mean that you do not in certain aspects confirm to certain categories.

If you are a Chrisian (as you have said yourself) then presumably you believe in an incorporeal entity called God that oversees everything and you believe you will continue some form of existence after you die, presumably in heaven.

But there is no evidence for any of this.

If you had been born in India or Iran do you think you would still believe exactly the same things?

This is just to point out that the overwhelming majority of people with a religious belief tend to have the one predominent where they are born/grow up.

Of course everyone is entitled to their beliefs and I'm not going to say anyone is right or wrong in ther beliefs (in the absence of evidence how could I?). Just that sometimes people with beliefs appear to feel that their paranormal belief (whether it be religious or otherwise) is more acceptable or likely than other paranormal beliefs, despite none having any evidence.

Rolfe

31st August 2009, 11:50 AM

Ach, Susan, don't worry about it. There's plenty of us around here, and they can call us woos if they like, no skin off my nose. ;)

Rolfe.

RSLancastr

31st August 2009, 12:03 PM

Don't you mean woe? :duck:

Anyway, re the OP.

I, as officially nominated Chief Thingy of the Society of Thingies, Wossnames and Doo-Dahs, officially give you, Mrs Lancaster, the label: RSL's Better Half, mother of none/some/all* of his children and an all round good egg.

Right, that's done. Pay the man on your way out; no credit cards and 10% discount for cash.

Have a nice day.

Next!

* delete where not applicable.

You might add stepmother of all of his children and stepfeeder of his kittycat,

RSL's better half

31st August 2009, 12:32 PM

UncaYimmy

31st August 2009, 12:39 PM

There's also such a thing as agreeing to disagree and treating each other with mutual respect. Also such a thing as agreeing "not to go there" and being able to openly discuss and talk about something without it becoming a debate or an argument.
I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. However, your description is incomplete as it stands. There is such a thing as disagreeing and arguing positions strenuously. There's nothing inherently wrong with that - people do it here all the time. Debates and arguments are often good things to have.

While mutual "respect" does exist, that doesn't mean we're all required to always "respect" each other. I put "respect" in quotes because it's a term with many meanings, and it can be applied to a single aspect of a person's life all the way up to their entire existence. I see no problem with having disrespect for a person who chooses a belief without any evidence and who refuses to critically examine that belief. Likewise I can respect that same person for doing their best to "save" me because they truly believe I will suffer for all eternity. The two issues of respect are not mutually exclusive.

When an atheist or agnostic is confronted by a person who is religious and is urged by them to repent their "wrong beliefs", they are offended, want to be left alone and argue that it's wrong to force your point of view on someone else and that it is something you should keep to yourself.
To be clear, you're not speaking for all atheists or agnostics, are you? I, for one, am not offended in the least when someone tries to convert me. In fact, I appreciate that in their minds they are trying to "save" me. I'm actually disappointed in people who claim to know that I am going to hell yet don't ever bother to even make a first attempt at "saving" me.

The reverse situation should be treated the same way. If you have a Christian or other friend and you confront them about their beliefs when they haven't been bothering you and try to make them see why it's a "wrong belief", they are offended, want to be left alone and certainly should argue that it's wrong to force your point of view on someone else and that it is something you should keep to yourself.
What you are saying really has little to do with religion, paranormal beliefs, or skepticism. If someone wants to talk about Star Wars when I don't want to, that's just rude. At the same time, if Star Wars is a big part of who I am, I shouldn't pretend otherwise. I don't want my lover, friends or family to squash parts of who they are just to avoid conflict.

Sometimes it's just pointless to fight since no one's mind will be changed and all it will do is create a lot of bad feelings. Both parties should agree to mostly keep it off the table.
Why should they agree to keep it off the table? Because you don't like it? Bad feelings are a part of life. That's par for the course when someone examines their own beliefs. And just because nothing is resolved in that particular argument is no reason to avoid all such arguments. Rarely does a person convert one way or another based on a single engagement.

As I said before, every relationship is unique. Each person needs to evaluate the importance of their own beliefs and the importance of the beliefs of others in regards to the relationship. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to sever a relationship over those beliefs, especially when those beliefs are central to who they are as a person. Likewise, if they want to make it work despite those differences, more power to them.

If I were forced to give generic advice about entering a relationship with someone whose core beliefs and values are different, I would suggest that they engage each other multiple times to see where it goes. The closer they mesh their lives and/or the stronger their beliefs, the more likely it's going to become a factor at some point. Better to deal with it earlier than later, even if "dealing with it" is just finding a way to disagree in a way that doesn't disrupt the relationship.

Ashles

31st August 2009, 12:50 PM

RSL'sBH, If you are declaring yourself a Christian on the General Skepticism Forum of the world's most prominent skeptical website and organisation, are you not expecting some responses which express skepticism towards a religious position?

My standards for evidence may be a bit less stringent compared to someone else's, but it doesn't make me less intelligent.

I haven't seen anyone on this thread imply you are not intelligent. As you say yourself, some very intelligent people believe in religion (some on thse forums). Some very intelligent people have also believed in some very strange and unfounded things over the years.
Intelligence is not related to religious belief so I don't see why it would be considered relevant. It doesn't provide any evidence for or against it.
Even the most skeptical have areas in which they do not practise skepticism.

All anyone is saying is, that like other paranormal beliefs, there is no scientific evidence towards it. If you believe in God, fine.
I'm not sure what you are expecting from this thread. Not everyone is going to agree with a religious stance, or take the position religious beliefs should not be debated.

Your faith may be very personal, and if you don't wish to debate it that's entirely fine.
But you started a thread about it in the Skepticism area so are likely to get some skeptical responses.

ETA: Please take my comments as being generic to discussion of anyone's religious beliefs rather than debating your specific beliefs which I do not know beyond they are non-denominationally Christian.

UncaYimmy

31st August 2009, 01:14 PM

I'm not actually offended in any way when someone takes issue with my belief in God. But I find it amusing that some folks will tell me I'm an intelligent person, and then tell me I believe in something to which there is no evidence. To me that's like saying, "you seem like an intelligent person . . . except -" I love it. To me, a belief in God depends on what you consider "evidence." My standards for evidence may be a bit less stringent compared to someone else's, but it doesn't make me less intelligent.
The premise is that intelligence is associated with the ability to reason and arrive at logical conclusions. If someone examines an emotional belief and applies reason, the theory is that they will realize the belief is based on emotion rather than on facts. As a comparison consider casino gambling. People convince themselves of all sorts inaccurate beliefs such as a number on the roulette wheel being "due" or their lucky shoes influencing the pull of a slot machine arm. They want to believe this. An intelligent person understands that each number called on the roulette wheel is independent of all previous numbers, and a slot machine grabs a random number immediately upon the pull and processes it via computer to determine what symbols appear regardless of your shoes.

The mistake the people made in pointing out the apparent contradiction between your intelligence and your faith is that they are ignoring the reality that the ability to reason is sufficient in all cases to overcome basic emotions like fear and feeling powerless. It's pretty tough to make the leap to admit that when you die, you die. It's hard to accept that when a child dies there is no greater good or lesson to be learned. Atheism is hard emotionally, and doesn't really require much intelligence.

Most Christians would not consider me a "true Christian." I don't conform. But that's OK. I'm not Christian for them. I'm Christian for me . . . and God. It's very personal. Which is one of the reasons I don't debate my faith.
In this post you have put forth your beliefs. You made a statement about "evidence" which is worthy of being examined. As far as other Christians are concerned, you made a statement about their faith that to them would be worthy of examination. You also presume that a god exists, which is in direct contradiction to the beliefs of many people here. You're just not willing to debate those statements. Does that mean you are not willing to read any responses address what you have said?

EeneyMinnieMoe

31st August 2009, 02:09 PM

...

Why should they agree to keep it off the table? Because you don't like it? Bad feelings are a part of life. That's par for the course when someone examines their own beliefs. And just because nothing is resolved in that particular argument is no reason to avoid all such arguments. Rarely does a person convert one way or another based on a single engagement.

As I said before, every relationship is unique. Each person needs to evaluate the importance of their own beliefs and the importance of the beliefs of others in regards to the relationship. I have no problem with anyone who chooses to sever a relationship over those beliefs, especially when those beliefs are central to who they are as a person. Likewise, if they want to make it work despite those differences, more power to them.

If I were forced to give generic advice about entering a relationship with someone whose core beliefs and values are different, I would suggest that they engage each other multiple times to see where it goes. The closer they mesh their lives and/or the stronger their beliefs, the more likely it's going to become a factor at some point. Better to deal with it earlier than later, even if "dealing with it" is just finding a way to disagree in a way that doesn't disrupt the relationship.

I agree with everything you said and I'll add one more thing- it's good- great- to talk about it or discuss it openly or even disagree and argue to a point. Sometimes both parties like being able to discuss it and not pretend it's not there and even enjoy the arguing and debating. It's cool with both of them to have an adult conversation about these things.

There is a line that should not be crossed, though, if you want to keep your friendship/relationship.

If you are white and have a black friend, it's usually ok to discuss race and politics- to a point. It's ok to disagree on some issues but there is a line that shouldn't be crossed if you want to stay friends. I speak from personal experience on this one.

If you are Christian and have a Muslim or Jewish friend, it's fine to talk about religion and politics- to a point. And pretty much what I said above. As a former Catholic who had friends from other religions growing up, I also speak from personal experience on this one.

If you are American and have a European friend, it's cool to talk politics and culture- up to a point and past that point, you should just not go there.

If you are liberal and have a conservative friend...the same thing. As someone who has been both a liberal and a conservative, I also speak from personal experience on this one.

If you are an atheist and agnostic and have a religious friend...the same thing.

If you are a skeptic and have a non-skeptic friend...the same thing.

If you are a heterosexual and aren't entirely comfortable with homosexuality or don't believe in things like gay marriage and you have a gay friend...the same thing.

If you are Polish and have a German or Russian friend, it's cool to talk about history and politics in a civil manner. To a point. And then you just don't go there.

I imagine it's the same thing if you are Indian and have a British friend or Chinese and have a Japanese friend or Latin American and have a Spanish friend.

These things can get very, very ugly. Religion, politics, nationality, race, culture, sexual orientation, etc. are highly controversial subjects that can divide human beings like nothing else can. And cause huge rifts between people.

Bill Maher was once asked how he could be such good friends with Ann Coulter. He replied (paraphrasing here) "Ann understands that if you disagree on something that strongly, you just don't go there. "

Edit: So basically, I guess what I'm trying to say is that there's a difference between good conflict and bad conflict. And bad conflict can get very, very, very bad.

RSL's better half

31st August 2009, 06:31 PM

This thread, as I said before, was a response to Robert's thread in which I was labeled for my actual beliefs and for what I had accepted as real (early in our relationship) because of what I was brought up to believe. I am not suddenly declaring my beliefs. I have made no secret of my beliefs in the two years I have been posting.

As for whether anyone has said that I am unintelligent for my belief in God (notice I did not say "religion"), I can only say that it is, at least, inferred by many. I have often heard (read) my belief in God is "emotional." In my experience, when someone says I'm being "emotional" - particularly a man - it usually means he thinks he's more rational than I am, and I'm rather silly to bring emotion into a supposedly "rational" conversation. All too often, it's an atheist who brings emotion with their utter anger that I could possibly believe what they consider nonsense. To have my very real belief system simplified and quite possibly belittled as being purely "emotional" is, in my opinion, ignorance of the very different communication styles between men and women, at the same time a challenge to put me or believers in general on the defense.

Guys, I LIVE WITH A "SKEPTIC." What argument or debate tactic do you think you can bring me that I have not already seen? When we have debated or argued the subject of my beliefs we go round and round and round and, in the end, never convince the other of our side of the subject. I do not debate the existance of God because I consider it a fact that needs no defense. I don't "presume" it - to me it's fact. We are all given a choice - to believe or not to. I do, you don't. So what?

Whether you're a skeptic or a religious person, you won't change my core beliefs. I don't think I could ever change yours either. My beliefs come through, I think, in my day-to-day living. I hide nothing. And I don't think it's my job to make you see my side. If God can't do it, who am I to try? My life, my way of life, will have to be the "witness." Either you think I'm on to something, or you don't. My job is to love, not debate or tell someone how wrong their choices are. If your choices are wrong, if mine is wrong, we will discover our errors soon enough.

I agree that people with such differences in beliefs need to be careful before entering into a lasting relationship. I also received this advice from my church family. With Robert and I, love and respect override our differences - and we both hope that the other will, before they die, see our side, I won't deny. Instead of harping on our differences, we accept them, and cherish every moment we have with each other, however long that may be.

Know that when I say I love the people in these forums, I mean it with every ounce of my being. Tolerance is almost fundamental here, with a few exceptions. I learn much every time I visit, and am showered with love often. It's what keeps me coming back.

Audible Click

31st August 2009, 06:36 PM

After reading your last post, I'm rather confused as to why you started this thread.

RSL's better half

31st August 2009, 07:23 PM

Audible Click

31st August 2009, 07:31 PM

If this was directed at me, let me assure you that I never mentioned the word "label" or attempted to "label" you. The main source of my confusion is why you didn't post in your husband's thread.

RSLancastr

31st August 2009, 07:55 PM

RSLancastr

31st August 2009, 08:00 PM

Hon, I am certainly sorry if my thread (or its title) bothered you. the whole point of the thread was: don't make snap judgements based on labels/categories. Even when you were (what I would consider) a woo, I never for a moment doubted your intelligence, which seems to be part of your objection to the label "woo." A person, in my book, can have lots of woo beliefs and still be very intelligent.

-me

JoeTheJuggler

31st August 2009, 08:32 PM

Sounds similar to the arrangement my first wife and I had regarding our kids. Sje tried to get me to agree no to talk to them about my agnosticism, but no dice. they are all in their 20s now, and, as far as I know, none are religious.

Agreed, Arth! I only used the wo label because of her former beliefs in psychics.
Many married people finish each other's sentences. Here, they use each other's avatars. . .

Anyway, I propose we designate Susan an honorary skeptic!

EeneyMinnieMoe

31st August 2009, 08:53 PM

Anyway, I propose we designate Susan an honorary skeptic!

She is a skeptic!

She certainly is a complete skeptic on psychics and mediums and, from what it sounds like, a skeptic on subjects like ESP and ghosts. Or at least more-skeptic-than-she-is-believer.

In fact, the only thing most of the rest of us would disagree with her on is religion.

So I guess in a skeptics' report card, this would get her about a 90 out of a 100. Or an A minus. Or partial credit.

If anyone wants to demonstrate to others that psychic detectives or astrology or conspiracy theories or anything else is false based on rational reasons, great. Someone, say, arguing against astrology for religious reasons might be questionable- but a person who happens to be a Christian (or any other theist) and wants to spread the message that astrology is a scam? Good for them!

UncaYimmy

31st August 2009, 10:00 PM

"This thread, as I said before, was a response to Robert's thread in which I was labeled for my actual beliefs and for what I had accepted as real (early in our relationship) because of what I was brought up to believe."

All I can add is that I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE BEING LABELED! If you need to label me, be sure I fit the label.

Gees. It's everybody else that keeps straying from the subject.

Nobody is straying from the subject. We're having a discussion. That's what this board is for.

You say you don't particularly like being labeled. Who does, really? You're not really special in that regard nor are you special in that you don't fit perfectly into any label or stereotype. The fact that you mention that to me implies you think others fit their labels.

From what I have read in this thread, you have used a number of labels and stereotypes such as Christian, supposed-Christian, born again Christian, atheist, angry atheist, smart people, skeptic, religious person, "the people on these forums" and, of course, people who use labels. You also said, "when someone says I'm being "emotional" - particularly a man..." Talk about your stereotypes!

Generally speaking, I really don't have an issue with the use of labels. They make it easier to communicate. I think nearly everyone understands that there's not a person on this planet who exactly fits just one stereotype with that being the sum of their existence. Most people match at least in some way any number of stereotypes. I don't see this as a problem. I do see a problem when people seem to shrug off labels for themselves on general principles while using labels for others.

Another point is that you wrote, "Unlike the "Christians" I have read about in these forums, I do not push my beliefs on anyone." Putting aside your use of a label for a moment, you also said, "I do not debate the existance of God because I consider it a fact that needs no defense."

I, for one, find the two statements contradictory. Nobody asked you for your beliefs about god, so it's definitely not a pull. It's a push, because you brought it up. Many of us find your use of the word "fact" in this case to be wholly incorrect and smacking of typical "woo" beliefs. I, for one, don't like it when someone makes a pronouncement that essentially tells me that I am wrong (your view is the opposite of mine) and then hides her head in the sand by saying that she won't debate it because it needs no defense.

If you're going to make those kinds of statements publicly, expect them to be addressed, and please don't criticize me or anyone else for attempting to engage you. EeneyMinnieMoe talks about "not going there" - well, you went there knowing that there are those that disagree. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage. Just don't tell us we can't respond.

Chimera

31st August 2009, 10:38 PM

If you're going to make those kinds of statements publicly, expect them to be addressed, and please don't criticize me or anyone else for attempting to engage you. EeneyMinnieMoe talks about "not going there" - well, you went there knowing that there are those that disagree. If you don't want to engage, then don't engage. Just don't tell us we can't respond.

Especially since this thread was started in the public forum "General Skepticism and the Paranormal".

rjh01

31st August 2009, 10:44 PM

I do label RSL's better half as the wife and carer of her husband. Is that wrong? I mean even her username and avatar is a reflection of being the wife of Robert

EeneyMinnieMoe

31st August 2009, 11:02 PM

UncaYimmy

1st September 2009, 12:05 AM

Maybe we should all just drop the subject. Susan just wanted to respond to her husband's thread calling her a "woo" and then skeptics wanted to respond to her and the debate about the reasons to believe and disbelieve the existence of God started...maybe we need a truce.
She started the thread with (emphasis added), "I know that most of you, including my husband, label me a 'woo'." Sounds to me like she was addressing all of us. It's standard practice for others to respond in kind. I don't think any type of "truce" is needed - it's not a war. It's a discussion on a discussion board. If she doesn't want to respond, that's entirely her choice. The thread will die a natural death like those that have come before. So far she's responded a few times and others have responded in kind. To me that's what the forum is about.

How's this? No more pointless arguing with Christian or Muslim or other forum members unless they bring up the subject first.
I'm offended that you would call my posts pointless. Seeing how this is a public board, the points made by myself and others are seen by far more people than those who actually participate in the discussion. We just recently had a thread with testimonials from people who said they learned quite a bit just by reading the debates found here.

I'm not trying to convert RSL's Better Half when I respond to what she writes. If some of it gets through, great. If not, such is life. This isn't a private conversation in her living room. Lots of people see it. Just because she's not ready to fully embrace skepticism doesn't mean that nobody else reading this thread is. Who knows, maybe a simple statement is just another brick in someone else's skeptical foundation.

The only pointless thing so far is you stepping into the middle of a thread in a Skepticism forum and telling people not to discuss skepticism. If she doesn't want to continue in the thread, that's her choice. If we find things to discuss without her, so be it. If not, it dies. Let it occur naturally rather than telling us what we should or should not discuss.

Rasmus

1st September 2009, 06:19 AM

The night my father died, just hours before his accident, we had a discussion about how I was being pressured to "witness" to people on the street and I was not comfortable with it. It was the first time I learned how my dad's belief systems had evolved. He told me that, unlike me, when he died Jesus nor anyone else would come between him and "the head man himself." I like to think that when he died that night he went straight to "the head man," and then he probably challenged Him to game of chess! His mother, however, who lived in Colorado while we lived in California, when told of his death the next morning, responded with "I know. He came to say goodbye to me last night . . . just before 11." My aunt swore she never told Gramma what time he died (10:50 pm). Let's just say, I am now a bit "skeptical."

You are a bit sceptical of what? That people can talk to the dead after all, and that therefore it is far from certain that the likes of Sylvia Brown are at best misguided frauds?

Correct me if I'm wrong, or if there are any details I could not be aware of, but aren't California and Colorado in different time zones? You seem to assign some significance to the fact that the times match. I am not sure why that is. Certainly a dead person giving their farewells three hours or 5 days after their death would be just as remarkable. But if the time of death is significant here, your grandmother would have missed it by an hour, right?

Did she ever explain why she didn't call you lot immediately after that occurrence? If my father appeared in front of me telling me he was dead I'd be on the phone instantly to a) find out if he's really dead and b) get me an ambulance as quickly as possible since I would assume I'm suffering through a nervous breakdown regardless of the condition of my dad.

But I *would* call my parents' and ask if everything was alright with dad. That very instance. I would wake up everyone in the house, and apologize if i had to for being silly. I would suffer the inevitable consequences of never ever hearing the end of it, in case I was wrong. But I *would* call and find out.

(Unless, possibly, I knew my dad was in a critical condition anyway. In that case I'd simply expect regular nightmares as much as I would be expecting the phone call in the morning ....)

RSLancastr

1st September 2009, 06:23 AM

Anyway, I propose we designate Susan an honorary skeptic!

Joe, she's a Skeptic in my book. but when we married, she was a ... you know.

RSLancastr

1st September 2009, 06:30 AM

I do label RSL's better half as the wife and carer of her husband. Is that wrong? I mean even her username and avatar is a reflection of being the wife of RobertBut there is so much moer to her than that. she's only known that way here because I was a regular here long before she got here, so most people here know her via her relationship to me. if there was a Christian forum where she hung out, I could show up and be "Susan's Better Half". or at least her Other Half.

JimBenArm

1st September 2009, 10:29 AM

The only label I'll use on her is "Nice lady who I like and am jealous of because she gets to hang out with RSL".

Not sure where I can glue it to her, though. At least not without getting punched by RSL...

Pup

1st September 2009, 11:12 AM

You say you don't particularly like being labeled. Who does, really? You're not really special in that regard nor are you special in that you don't fit perfectly into any label or stereotype. The fact that you mention that to me implies you think others fit their labels.

From what I have read in this thread, you have used a number of labels and stereotypes such as Christian, supposed-Christian, born again Christian, atheist, angry atheist, smart people, skeptic, religious person, "the people on these forums" and, of course, people who use labels. You also said, "when someone says I'm being "emotional" - particularly a man..." Talk about your stereotypes!

Generally speaking, I really don't have an issue with the use of labels. They make it easier to communicate. I think nearly everyone understands that there's not a person on this planet who exactly fits just one stereotype with that being the sum of their existence. Most people match at least in some way any number of stereotypes. I don't see this as a problem. I do see a problem when people seem to shrug off labels for themselves on general principles while using labels for others.

Well, I was going to post something, but UY said it much better than I could.

RSLancastr

1st September 2009, 05:38 PM

The only label I'll use on her is "Nice lady who I like and am jealous of because she gets to hang out with RSL".

Of late, hanging out with me is not that great a thing, but thanks.

Not sure where I can glue it to her, though. At least not without getting punched by RSL... :mad:

Whiplash

1st September 2009, 06:48 PM

One thing I find useful about this thread.. it put's a very human face on things.

I also feel that many atheists go out of their way to be insulting or condescending, or at the very least, questioning the intelligence of those they disagree with.

And as someone who was raised in a religious family, my defensiveness kicks in automatically.

But often I feel it's that people don't actually know the people they are arguing against. That they are more rude or unforgiving, because they are not empathizing in any way with the person or people in question. Not trying to understand their experiences, where they came from, or how they think.

When the subject comes up in a more personal form like this, it makes them take a step back and see the bigger picture. They (hopefully) realize it's not so black and white as they have always thought. They (hopefully) can empathize a bit and try to actually understand.

I'm glad to see a discussion like this. Even though I am no longer a believer in any religious matters, I still feel that we are better served to find ways to help each other to learn and grow. And not by mockery and insult, as I've said many times. And I think that something like this helps put a human face on the subject. I think it's fertile ground for much more productive discussion.

supercorgi

1st September 2009, 08:01 PM

Guys, I LIVE WITH A "SKEPTIC." What argument or debate tactic do you think you can bring me that I have not already seen? When we have debated or argued the subject of my beliefs we go round and round and round and, in the end, never convince the other of our side of the subject. I do not debate the existance of God because I consider it a fact that needs no defense. I don't "presume" it - to me it's fact. We are all given a choice - to believe or not to. I do, you don't. So what?

Susan, I think you're an amazing and very strong woman. You've been devoted through an incredibly difficult time with Robert. And I'm amazed by your strength and devotion. I think you're a very intelligent woman. But many intelligent people have blind spots -- areas that the fence off from rational criticism, and believe things for emotional (and men are emotional too) reasons.

I do not criticize your Christianity. Obviously it is a large part of your world view and yourself. I appreciate that you don't try to force your beliefs on others. I disrespect Christians who deny science because it doesn't jive with their world view. But you don't seem to be one of those. Your faith is very personal and a part of your identity. I can respect that although I, personally, don't accept that.

KittyNH is a very good example of a Christian who yet has a skeptical world view. She has reserved a place of her faith because it is important to her, but doesn't let that stop her from analyzing other "wooish" claims.

I know you do the same. My family are Christian to a more or less degree. Some know I'm an atheist, some don't. I don't try to advertise it until they make bigoted and unsupportable claims. My sister-in-law's mother is a super devout Catholic (her three brothers are/were priests). Her grandson is gay. I don't know how she deals with this but she seems to love him none the less (and she worships his partner).

People are really good at comparmentalizing their beliefs. You accept some things on faith but it doesn't stop you from questioning other suspicious claims. Maybe some day, you'll apply it to your religious beliefs. I won't care much way or the other. You're a wonderful person, married to a wonderful man. And I can't express enough my respect for you for dealing with an incredibly difficult situation with dignity and love. I don't label you as as "woo" if anything I label you as a searching woman who is willing to question things but takes other things on faith. You're no less intelligent for doing that. many really smart people do that. If it offers you comfort, but you don't try to force your beliefs on other people, I'm happy with you.

Much love and luck in your life. You've got a good man. Someone who might challenge your thinking but thinking is good!

supercorgi

1st September 2009, 08:09 PM

I'm glad to see a discussion like this. Even though I am no longer a believer in any religious matters, I still feel that we are better served to find ways to help each other to learn and grow. And not by mockery and insult, as I've said many times. And I think that something like this helps put a human face on the subject. I think it's fertile ground for much more productive discussion.

Whiplash, sometimes I think you react overly emotionally, especially when some expresses criticism of someone. But in this case I fully agree with you. Discourse is good - we learn from it. Empathy is important, people come from different viewpoints and backgrounds. We may not agree with them, and may criticize them. Criticism is not all bad - it's an expression of opinion. You may agree or disagree but criticism is essential to thinking about things. If we didn't have differing opinions, we'd never be challenged and we never learn.

dropzone

1st September 2009, 08:25 PM

Better Half, I regret, or not, my occasional WOO! suspicions and you've been nice to me. That leaves you OKAY in my book

bpesta22

1st September 2009, 09:21 PM

Intelligence is not related to religious belief so I don't see why it would be considered relevant. It doesn't provide any evidence for or against it.
.

This is not true; there's lots of data showing a link. It has little relevance to whether the OP is intelligent, but indeed IQ is related to religiosity.

UncaYimmy

1st September 2009, 09:52 PM

I also feel that many atheists go out of their way to be insulting or condescending, or at the very least, questioning the intelligence of those they disagree with.

And as someone who was raised in a religious family, my defensiveness kicks in automatically.
Maybe this should be a clue that those atheists aren't being as insulting and condescending as you think. Maybe you're not empathizing with what has transpired in their lives that led them to most likely question their religious beliefs (few atheists have been so all their lives) and explore other possibilities.

Maybe you don't think about how hard it is emotionally to say, "Well, my father died. That's it. Nothing left to do but to burn the carcass. Whatever I said or didn't say to him when he was alive can't be changed. I'll never see him again. His 'spirit' didn't float by and say final goodbyes to anyone. He suffered a heart attack in the bathroom and died alone, probably in fear. There was nothing waiting for him on the 'other side' because there is no other side."

As for which side is being condescending, think about which side claims to have a definitive answer without evidence and which side claims no evidence and thus no definitive answer. Think about which side declares their position first, then alters the definition of "evidence" to match their beliefs and which side defines "evidence" and then uses that evidence to form their beliefs, regardless of whether they "like" it or not or how much it might hurt emotionally.

And for the record, I don't consider the above to condescending or insulting. It applies to many situations, not just atheism vs religion.

But often I feel it's that people don't actually know the people they are arguing against. That they are more rude or unforgiving, because they are not empathizing in any way with the person or people in question. Not trying to understand their experiences, where they came from, or how they think.
As I pointed out before, not every debate is about convincing the person to whom you're replying. Actually, I'd say most debates I engage in are not about convincing the other person. When presidential candidates debate, they don't try to convince each other. They try to convince those in the middle that they're right. Often that's how I approach public discussions.

When the subject comes up in a more personal form like this, it makes them take a step back and see the bigger picture. They (hopefully) realize it's not so black and white as they have always thought. They (hopefully) can empathize a bit and try to actually understand.
I don't consider public discussions to be personal. What I say in a public forum is quite different than what I would say to someone in person. Truth be told there are people I engage publicly that I wouldn't bother to engage personally because I don't think I'll make any headway with them.

Besides, it's about positions and ideas anyway. If your self-worth and beliefs are intertwined, you might take it personally, but for the most part I'm really only going after the beliefs.

I'm glad to see a discussion like this. Even though I am no longer a believer in any religious matters, I still feel that we are better served to find ways to help each other to learn and grow. And not by mockery and insult, as I've said many times. And I think that something like this helps put a human face on the subject. I think it's fertile ground for much more productive discussion.
We all have different approaches and styles, and we reach different people. That's a good thing. There's not just one way to do it. Sometimes mockery is a useful tool. As for insults, I have the feeling that you and I probably differ on what constitutes an insult. For example, you might consider telling someone that their beliefs are absurd because they are based on indoctrination and fear rather than reality to be an insult. I don't.

Dogdoctor

2nd September 2009, 12:32 AM

Raises my beer to RSL's better half. " Here's to not fitting the mold." (polishes off the beer)

Undesired Walrus

2nd September 2009, 12:47 AM

I do not debate the existance of God because I consider it a fact that needs no defense.

I suggest that that's quite worrying.

skeen

2nd September 2009, 07:37 AM

God can't prove himself to us because he isn't real. People "prove" his existence to themselves, and to other impressionable people. "God" does nothing.

Ashles

2nd September 2009, 10:17 AM

This is not true; there's lots of data showing a link. It has little relevance to whether the OP is intelligent, but indeed IQ is related to religiosity.

Do you have a link to this data?

And which way does the correlation indicate?

rjh01

2nd September 2009, 02:37 PM

Do you have a link to this data?

And which way does the correlation indicate?

Try these for starters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence
http://www.halfsigma.com/2006/06/religion_and_in.html

If you do not like it google religion intelligence and you will get heaps of links. Most of them look like rubbish.

MikeSun5

2nd September 2009, 07:21 PM

You are assuming much, Mike. You don't know me, yet you judge and label me. What would you call me if our positions were reversed?

The title of this thread is "Label me if you must," but you get bummed when someone does? ;)

As far as me not knowing you, that's correct. :) All of my information about you was taken from the OP, so I only had that to go on. The comments I made about cherry picking was a general statement that I've noticed applies to most "intelligent" Christians. Educated (and "skeptical") Christians will believe certain Bible stories verbatim while brushing off others as allegory.

I didn't say you did it, but it is a common practice among "woos." If you don't fit that label, you don't fit that label.

bpesta22

2nd September 2009, 09:13 PM

The Wiki cites provided seem fairly current. It's probably about .30-- as IQ goes up, religiosity goes down. When data are aggregated (looking at US states or countries) the correlations become vary large and explain as much of the variance as any other variable.

Ashles

3rd September 2009, 08:24 AM

So the research indicates correlation between higher IQ and less religious belief?

"I'm not saying that believing in God makes you dumber. My hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) is that people with a low intelligence are more easily drawn toward religions, which give answers that are certain, while people with a high intelligence are more skeptical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeptical)," says the professor. [5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religiosity_and_intelligence#cite_note-4)

RSL's better half

3rd September 2009, 12:38 PM

UncaYimmy

3rd September 2009, 01:02 PM

Ashles

3rd September 2009, 01:08 PM

Well, aren't you all just so vindicated? Proof that you are smarter than the average . . . (fill in the blank).

Hate to burst your bubble, but you're no different than the average person - any of you. If you're going to continue being full of yourselves, could you start your own thread and end the hijacking of mine?

:confused:

You brought up the subject of intelligence versus religious beliefs. Someone else had data regarding studies on the subject which they cited.

We were having a discussion and I have learned something new from it.

Now it appears you are annoyed because this information appers different from what you personally believe?

Fine, but there's no need to get cross with us about it.

And anyway, didn't you start this thread of complaining that you didn't like being labelled or placed in a category? You said:
It has been my experience that if you generalize about people, if you lump them into various categories, some of us will make you look a bit foolish when it is evident that we do not fit the mold you've made.
and
I never quite fit into the categories other folks put me in, and am proud of that actually.

Now you say to us collectively:
Hate to burst your bubble, but you're no different than the average person - any of you.

How would you feel if someone had posted that to you?

This is a skeptical site. If you want to discuss or question religious beliefs or studies/claims regarding correlation between religious beliefs and intelligence then great. That's what we do here.
If not I am confused as to what you intended by the original post. For no responses?

And if we are on topic then it's not fair for you to demand we leave a thread. Especially when all our responses have been to initial points you made.

ETA: Just noticed Unca responded with the same points more succinctly.

thaiboxerken

3rd September 2009, 01:10 PM

Hate to burst your bubble, but you're no different than the average person - any of you.

You're wrong. If I was average, I'd agree with you, but I'm above average.

bpesta22

3rd September 2009, 01:40 PM

You are from california. Here's how your state ranks on things I hope are relevant to things that were mentioned in this thread so that people dont think my stuff is a derail.

California
Overall Well-being 30th
Religiosity 12th (12th most religious state)
Crime 19th
Education 14th
Health 21.5th
Income 20th
IQ 48th (state iq of 95.5!)

LibraryLady

3rd September 2009, 02:17 PM

I frankly don't care what your beliefs are, it's your actions that count. And by your actions, you are a wonderful person.

So there.

rjh01

3rd September 2009, 02:32 PM

I frankly don't care what your beliefs are, it's your actions that count. And by your actions, you are a wonderful person.

So there.

Another person has given you a label. Terrible is it not?

kittynh

3rd September 2009, 02:46 PM

well susan took very good care of your cat Robert, and if that isn't Xian I don't know what is.

UncaYimmy

3rd September 2009, 02:51 PM

I frankly don't care what your beliefs are, it's your actions that count. And by your actions, you are a wonderful person.

So there.

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a thread about our personal feelings regarding a member's value as a human being.

EeneyMinnieMoe

3rd September 2009, 04:59 PM

Please. Let's. All. Just. Drop. It.

I, for one, personally do not care or mind one way or the other what Susan's (or anyone else's) religious beliefs are and do not in the least judge them for it. To repeat- she has never tried to convert anyone or force her views on anyone on this forum and indeed has barely even spoken about it. She only started this thread in response to her husband bringing up her previous belief in psychics. She is a complete and total skeptic on just about everything but religion and has been very involved in fighting a well known medium and psychic. And she's a very nice person.

(Though I usually find it more than a little condescending and insulting when people say things like that. "My dad supports the Republican Party and watches Fox News- but you have to understand, he's a really good person." Your father is an adult human being who chooses to support the Republican Party of his free will and has a perfect right to do so. Stop talking about him as though he's a misguided but sweet child you have to make "excuses" for. In this case though, I say "She's a nice person who happens to disagree with you and politely told you why so back off!")

UncaYimmy

3rd September 2009, 05:25 PM

Please. Let's. All. Just. Drop. It.

If you don't care to participate in the discussion, don't. If RSL's Better Half doesn't want to participate, that's her choice. If we want to continue the discussion, that's our choice. In case you didn't notice, people are addressing each other as well as her (and her, us). You know, this being a discussion forum and all. So. Stop. Telling. People. What. To. Do.

MikeSun5

3rd September 2009, 05:42 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a thread about our personal feelings regarding a member's value as a human being.

I did.

dropzone

3rd September 2009, 09:45 PM

Skipped the whole thread, but slightly know RSL'sBH (nice lady) and am married to a woman who alternates between being woo-free and the very queen of woo. My point:

RSL'sBH, how are things going? You aren't paying too much attention to these guys, are you?

SkeptiChick

3rd September 2009, 11:39 PM

Sorry, I didn't realize this was a thread about our personal feelings regarding a member's value as a human being.I didn't think it was about that either... But if that is what it is about, one thing's for sure: it doesn't belong on this forum.

Audible Click

3rd September 2009, 11:52 PM

I didn't think it was about that either... But if that is what it is about, one thing's for sure: it doesn't belong on this forum.

I have to agree with you and UncaYimmy.