I stand by my analogy this is like the Middle East in people are simply not getting along, although I'm glad no deaths have occurred on this thread. While there are many things on PETA's agenda I can support, the way they pander for publicity in an edgy way turns away people that might support them. Religion threads as they have been presented are effectively a political thread. From a methods standpoint, it's no different than when DrBerman was allowed to publicly flame daily. I won't accuse anyone of being just like DrBerman, but again the methods are just too close and definitely disruptive. Daniel like others has just observed politics and religion is often lumped together ("religion and politics") - another reason why this topic should not get the pass political topics do. In a non-hostile atmosphere, I'd open up on this topic on things like people that twist and pervert religion, but not in an environment any transparent comment would invite sharks. So since a friendly discussion on religion here is a joke why have it?
What ever happened to The Good Doctor, anyway? Did his parents finally take away his Internet privileges?
So are your cries to ban religion altogether. I shudder to think of the flimsiness of the value system America would possess without a belief system to back it up. Your's is a prime example.
I can appreciate how it's sometimes difficult for people to separate thought from emotion. Doing so tends to promote clearer thought and more effective communication. Unless it's considered fair game to suggest that religion is an attack on reality, labelling criticism of religion as an attack is not appropriate. Nor is it reasonable to assume that criticism of religion is specifically about christianity. Atheism and agnosticism are generally considered 'multi faith'. On a similar note, expressions of non-belief have nothing to do with hatred. I don't "hate the lord thy god" - as I've been accused - I simply don't believe in deities.
It is kinda like setting up a "silly poll" and offering only two or three or x number of responses where there are more possibilities. It might be a poorly written poll but it is a poll. Take it or leave it.
On that point, read the English language Wikipedia bios. I see numerous bios that an emotional point in one's life changed their politics, religion, or something else significant. For example, there have been many threads that someone had a bad experience buying a car or some other product, swore them off and encouraged members here to do likewise - that's emotional. It's good to control one's emotions, but you can't get rid of them. The bottom line is many religion discussions end up exactly like political arguments that are moved to the private forums.... differentiating the two is very unconvincing when it's the same bad outcome.
I think we all wondered about that. His manner was so extreme I half doubted he was an actual person. From snippets of things he'd said about his practice I got into MD feedback/lookup websites and almost certainly found him, running a practice in Manhattan, which, incidentally, had feedback that complained of chronic double-billing, something not the least surprising. I even found a picture of him (which I won't post, although I'd been tempted many times), and in that regard he is the epitome of the claim that you cannot judge a book by its cover, looking nothing at all like his on-screen persona, but handsome, friendly, congenial in mien, kind of Walter Matthauish, only better looking, someone you think you'd be glad to get to know on first sight. I don't miss him one bit.
No, of course we can't get rid of emotions. Nor should we even try - some of them are very pleasant. As for emotions and debates, that's a little different. Far too often, people let their otherwise good judgement and presumably rational thought processes get poisoned by anger. It should be possible to talk about both religion and politics, not to mention many other touchy subjects, without taking things personally and blowing a gasket. But, we all know that rarely happens.
My theory is still that he picked a random name from a doctors' directory list and the real Dr. Berman didn't know anything about ours. Our Doctor seemed to, if I remember correctly, lack basic knowledge about medicine as well as how our health care system worked.
My family suffered one too many people impersonating a physician. I was named after a family member that loaded bombs on the B-29s headed to Japan, then accounted for the ones that made it back. Right after the war, he milked a cow in East Texas that kicked him. Rabies until the 1950's was an extremely serious thing. Turns out he saw a quack that did an incredibly mindless thing - gave him a rabies shot in the spine. He died a few days later and the quack fled. He was 33.
Trebuchet: You keep repeating that Pascal didn't really mean what he said. That would be relevant if I was discussing Pascal. I am not. I am discussing an argument that happens to bear his name, and which is often made. Yes, you can make any argument you like. But if you fail to take into account all possibilities, then your argument is worthless. The argument known as "Pascal's wager" is worthless. I have no inside knowledge, but I always imagined that he was banned. Yes, it is. And that's why I labeled it a SILLY poll. My space polls are silly and meaningless and posted just for fun, with the express statement that they are silly, and by extension meaningless. Pascal's wager has been given to me as a serious argument for believing in god, with no disclaimer that it is a silly and meaningless argument. This proves nothing, but: A few years ago I sustained a minor but painful ankle injury (I think I bruised the bone) while hiking. There was a LOT of snow that year, and two days in a row we were on snow all day long, side-hilling for much of the time. As all hikers know, side-hilling can be hard on the ankles. I had to pad my boot with an extra hiking sock for the rest of the season. I posted about it on Prius Chat and Berman offered some medical advice. It was entirely outside his field, and I was glad I didn't take it because it turned out to be bad advice. But he also PM'd me a phone number and invited me to call him for a phone consultation. I did not. So I don't know if the number was legit. But it did kind of lend credence to the possibility that he really was a doctor. I presume he would have billed me if I had phoned, and I had no reason to think he could have given good advice, and I preferred to consult my own doctor. :focus: I find it interesting that the most vocal defenders of Pascal on this thread seem to be agreeing with the atheists, and disagreeing with Pascal's wager itself, when they admit that believing in god just for the reward (which is what Pascal's wager is all about) is a bad thing. Their defense of Pascal is "He didn't really mean it when he offered that argument. He was just inventing a new kind of analysis. But the argument was not meant to be taken seriously." So they're really agreeing with my critique of the wager. They say that Pascal didn't really mean it. And I have never been talking about Pascal himself, only about the argument that bears his name, and which is still offered up from time to time as a reason why we should believe in god. Speaking of the argument: The theists in this thread seem to agree with me that it's not a legitimate argument, and not a good reason to believe in god. (You should believe in god, according to them, but not for this reason.) They're just angry at me for ragging on religion.
Pascal's wager is only half the story - the 'carrot' of going to heaven. The other half is the 'stick' of going to hell for not believing.
Honestly Spidey, no one is ragging on your delusions so long as you keep them private. The larger problem is support of institutionalized delusions that are a menace to human and animal alike. Daniel, you are not hearing atheists agree with your position that Pascal's wager is illogical because the circular reasoning is transparent. I did enjoy reading some of the finer subtleties making fun of the argument I had not thought of though
