[John Freestone]

JB, I'm sorry for upsetting you and attacking your world view, as you see it. I wonder if we can both recognise how similar our faults are. We seem to be guilty of the same things:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Browne

Old dear boy John Freestone is just being a bit defensive as far as I can see.

Yes, I'm feeling defensive. It happens when I'm misunderstood and attacked.

BTW: I was incredelously comparing the idea of people being insane for believing and having faith in something currently unprovable to thinking we should lock up the guys at CERN or people theorizing about the multiverse.

Then my failure to be clear about irony by including the relevant smileys seems ridiculous, and I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation with you any further. There is nothing I can see in what you said that gave away the ironic nature of your desire to lock up CERN scientists. It would have been useful, if indeed this response is genuine, to have said origninally something like "What you're saying is no different to if I said...CERN...". It would distinguish it from the sense "We're not mad for believing unproved things, it's those nutters at CERN". Either that, or add a wink smiley to your fascist statements.

That's it. I was making a point about the discussion at hand. I'm not really commenting on your tone either.

Then I am quite simply as mad as a sausage. I should stop reading anything anyone writes, because I misinterpret it so badly.

I'm just saying that you are obviously attacking the credibility of multiple people in these forums while trying to make it seem like you aren't, which I think could be regarded as passive agressive.

Hard to see that as not really commenting on my tone.

I don't actually take much stock in the label of passive agressive but since you seem willing to throw labels on people that easily im playing your game to try to make you see what im talking about.

Oh. So we're both passive aggressive from time to time. What shall we do, trace it back and work out who started it? The point is to stop being passively aggressive, I think, and state clearly what is going on for us, so that we can be honest and work towards understanding...or not if we prefer.

I have no animosity to you whatsoever

I doubt that very much.

and I could easily be close friends with someone who had your beliefs, as long as he didn't mind defending his position without resorting to foolish attacking tactics. I've encountered what I consider intellectual bullies before.

You see how it's just both of us, though? These are criticisms that we could both level at each other. When two people are angry and arguing with each other and feeling defensive and feeling that they're being unjustly attacked. If you insinuate that I am an intellectual bully, that is intellectual bullying. I have been guilty at times of 'foolish attacking tactics' perhaps, but behind them was a frustration that 'defending my position' was being railroaded by unfair and defensive tactics. Now, if you admit to playing my game above to get your point across, making statements about scientists that you didn't mean and not making that clear, I can only see that as doing the same thing. You're frustrated that sensible points aren't getting through to me, so you resort to acting out. Like I say, we are doing what people do when the argue. Let's not just keep doing it and not notice, eh?

People that don't really spend a lot of time argueing for their position and against yours. They spend more time attacking your credibility and pointing out that your a fool for considering the possibility or idea they consider to be unreasonable or illogical.

It is a difficult line to tread. I have tried to argue philosophically about the LoA, etc. without attacking people for believing in it, but the reason I criticise it is because it is unreasonable and illogical (imho) and that just naturally leads to the fact that people who believe in it will feel that they are being personally attacked. That's one side of it. Another, I have to admit to, is that I haven't just been all squeaky clean and lovely: I have in particular been quite snide and viscious about Steve Pavlina (with whom I have never had any kind of dealing to my knowledge - alhtough he could be on this forum by another name for all I know - Angela, is that you). I kind of don't know what to do with that except admit it and say I am sorry if I have personally offended someone, but Jeez, it's not like I'm spraying bullets round a freaking classroom - people get the piss taken out of them millions of times a day - and here it is quite acceptable, it seems, to do that about Christians for their unreasonable and illogical beliefs.

Imagine that you actually felt really concerned that the scientific world was taking us all in a dangerous direction making particles play chicken (if you have to imagine - I don't actually believe that was ironic at all) - and you started to feel you should do something about it - so you started posting questions and critical comments about science at some science forum. I guarantee it would be only a moment before those people felt attacked personally, called stupid and irresponsible, crazy, dangerous, and responded defensively, and you'd be in my position. But - and this is the crucial question no-one is addressing - is it acceptable to criticise those who have different beliefs? Would you have the right - even the responsibility - to raise your concerns? Would you actually be patronising (cause they'll ask why you think you have to save everyone, why you think you have some special insight, and why you're bullying them)? You would have to be quite masterful in your language use to avoid it.

Who made you the ultimate judge and authority of logic and truth? This is a similiar type of mindset that hardcore christians or "jesus freaks" have, when they post things like "I'll be praying to Jesus to save your soul." on blogs or forums, to people they consider to be "wordly", atheist, exisentialist etc.

QED. Quite laughable, considering what I have said to try to demonstrate that I am ready to listen, present my ideas sensibly, maintain as much humility and perspective as possible, and even apologise when I have lost my rag. With serious irony, I can only say that I sincerely hope you give up your belief in magic and return to the real world, but I can't say that at all without it being perceived as a personal bullying attack, no doubt. Still, for your own sake, and everybody else's, I hope you all do. You see, to me, LoA and other magical beliefs are not so dissimilar to particle-chicken. I perceive humanity approaching quite a critical point of evolution, where it will be crucial to our survival (and generally a 'happy ending') for us to avoid superstitions (if we have them) and deal with extremely serious, real, physical and social problems.

That's kind of where I came in, sharing my concern that sitting round imagining money and calling it spiritual enlightenment, or believing in things that 'haven't yet been proven' (and for which there is a lot of evidence demonstrating that they are almost certainly FALSE) isn't going to help us love each other, share wealth, stop bombing each other and avoid global warming. It seems, however, almost impossible to wake people up enough to discuss this sensibly (with a few exceptions, whom I am sorry to leave, and sorry to have been distracted from relating to on this - hope to meet you again somewhere else), assuming my fears are even founded. You're not helping to allay them one jot. If sincere discussion can't be differentiated from arrogant bullying, we might as well give up now, just 'polish the Titanic' and count dolphins until someone puts us out of our 'happiness'.