Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Nearly Sane]

I think it was pretty clear that I was asking what this person was teaching. But now I have the answer so all is well.
Nope - I will return to this later. There is a whole thread 'Fine details ...' that is around the veracity of comments recalled years later (I am presuming that you took these courses many years ago - if not please confirm when this was). Point being that it is very common for individuals to err in recollection, or perhaps more relevant here misinterpret what they see or here. All I was doing was asking whether you are sure this was what the person intended you to think or whether there may be other interpretations.

As someone who spends a considerable amount of time teaching students I am well aware that sometimes I think I am very clear in a point, but that some students misinterpret my meaning.

Valid points but why not jut ask was I sure if my recall was correct rather than invent some possible alternative to fit in with your beliefs? And yes I could be wrong but that then applies to all recall on here. Since I raised the question at the time quite frequently to get clarity I think it's correct but I can't be certain.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Turns out the evidence you weren't seeing is even called a Syndrome!

http://marlenewinell.net/religious-trauma-syndrome-its-

Yes - I can see this happening in the US. They do fundamentalist religion as well as other things differently there - gun control for instance...

I don't see any evidence regarding numbers involved though - this seems to relate to people who have experienced fundamentalist or extremist versions of religion, while I was talking about how mainstream religion is conducted in the UK.

Do you have some similar evidence for the UK?

[ProfessorDavey]

Valid points but why not jut ask was I sure if my recall was correct rather than invent some possible alternative to fit in with your beliefs?

Now who it is who is making assumptions - perhaps you might clarify what beliefs you perceive I have that need an alternative explanation to fit.

I don't think I have proffered any 'belief' on the matter - I have said 'Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is objective.' I have never given any view as to why I think that would be inappropriate, although I'm happy to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

No you have told me 3 different law topics. They might have been part of a law course, or several law courses. Alternatively they could have been topics that are covered, briefly perhaps, in the context of a different subject. So for example I teach masters level course focussed on medical ethics, but in doing so I need to cover certain aspects of the law as they pertain to medical ethics. I cover law topics, but my students aren't taking a law course, let alone a law degree.

The point being the approach to how those topics are covered and taught may be completely different depending on context, i.e. as part of a law course and law qualification or as secondarily important material as part of a course and qualification that isn't law.

That's the reason for asking and I trusty you realise now that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to ask for clarification on, and indeed thanks for clarifying.

Not really sure what relevance your aeternatives have here, and you seem to be saying that you don't think topics are subjects but when you originally asked you used the word topic, and have then stated that was you asking for subject.

[Nearly Sane]

Now who it is who is making assumptions - perhaps you might clarify what beliefs you perceive I have that need an alternative explanation to fit.

I don't think I have proffered any 'belief' on the matter - I have said 'Nonetheless seems rather inappropriate to indicate that morality is objective.' I have never given any view as to why I think that would be inappropriate, although I'm happy to do so.

Apologies, my post was unclear. The belief I am talking about was what you thought could have been meant, not your own position on morality.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Thank you. Do you not think though that it would be more honest to say something like, "yes I suppose that would need to be the case for my analogy with Father Christmas to have worked. OK, I'll withdraw it then"?

No, because you would need to show that the things you described in your response have a material effect on people. Got anything better than your vivid imagination and hyperbole?

But as you now know that "deriving value" tells you sweet FA about the epistemic claims of fact of their religions we both know that that's irrelevant don't we. For sure though the private jet flying, big suited televangelists with ambitious hair-dos derive a lot of "value" from it, I'll give you that.

Again very amusing. No, deriving value from religion is not irrelevant to people - I imagine that's why religion continues precisely because it is not irrelevant.   

So Religious Trauma Syndrome then?

Got any evidence about numbers in the UK suffering from this Syndrome? Because we wouldn't want you making generalisations based on a syndrome suffered by a tiny portion of the population. That would make you look stupid and we wouldn't want that.

That would be as useful as trying to do away with dieting because of the trauma of a minority of people who have eating disorders.

[ProfessorDavey]

Apologies, my post was unclear. The belief I am talking about was what you thought could have been meant, not your own position on morality.

That makes no sense.

All I did was offer a possible alternative explanation as to what this person might have been trying to convey, that perhaps you might have misinterpreted. If that alternative interpretation is the 'belief' how is that consistent with your initial response to my comment:

'I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs.'

You are clearly talking of the interpretation and the beliefs as different things, the former made up to align with the latter. So again I ask, what are those beliefs that you think I have that drove me to make up an alternative interpretation of your story in order to align with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

That wasn't an insult, it was describing my impression of what has happened recently when Davey was replying to my posts.

So you think this:

“You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.”

Isn’t using insult in place of argument?

Seriously?

We clearly have different understandings of the term, “insult” then. From a fairly crowded field, my experience is that the ad hom is the favourite of your various fallacies.

But leaving aside your irrelevant comments…

Pointing out your use of the ad hom in place of argument isn’t irrelevant.

- though given the insults you use in place of argument (muppets ring a bell?)

You’re confusing responding to an argument by insulting the person making it (you) with describing a character type (me).   

… it must be nice for you to feel you are talking to a kindred spirit even if you do come across as a complete hypocrite in the process –

Only to you Gabriella, only to you… 

…we were talking about religious privilege in the UK and I was talking about my experience of religion and Father Christmas in the UK. I am not commenting on the experiences of children in the US as I have no experience of that.

First, Susan said, “Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a  caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because  it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that  trustt will crumble into dust.

If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.”


She made no reference to meaning by that only children with British passports.

Second, trauma caused by losing parents’ religion isn’t country specific. Presumably its incidence and severity increases with the level of religiosity of the society involved, but it’s a generalised phenomenon. 

Third, having had your Father Christmas analogy falsified why (once again) have you veered away into more irrelevance rather than deal with it? Consider NS just now very decently acknowledging that he mis-spoke when he referred to Dunning-Kruger. Would it really kill you to show similar decency in future?   

[Nearly Sane]

That makes no sense.

All I did was offer a possible alternative explanation as to what this person might have been trying to convey, that perhaps you might have misinterpreted. If that alternative interpretation is the 'belief' how is that consistent with your initial response to my comment:

'I find it bizarre that you have an interpretation of something that you weren't at that you appear to have made up to align with your own beliefs.'

You are clearly talking of the interpretation and the beliefs as different things, the former made up to align with the latter. So again I ask, what are those beliefs that you think I have that drove me to make up an alternative interpretation of your story in order to align with.

That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

Yes - I can see this happening in the US. They do fundamentalist religion as well as other things differently there - gun control for instance...

I don't see any evidence regarding numbers involved though - this seems to relate to people who have experienced fundamentalist or extremist versions of religion, while I was talking about how mainstream religion is conducted in the UK.

Do you have some similar evidence for the UK?

Yes. Try these articles from the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies for example:

http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx

Incidentally, you have a dodgy habit of first denying a phenomenon, then when that becomes unsupportable responding with demands for data about incidence (how many cars does advertising sell then?, how many people suffer from the syndrome? etc).

Presumably the number of people in the UK who suffer Religious Trauma Syndrome is unknowable because most keep it to themselves, but there must be significantly enough for academics write articles about it.   

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

So you think this:

“You seem to be having real trouble reading posts at the moment (other than the ones cheering you on from your fan club). Your brain seems to read the words and then interpret them to mean something completely different from what was written, based on your preconceptions. You should correct that - must be a real handicap in academia.”

Isn’t using insult in place of argument?

Seriously?

No. Seriously.

Glad I cleared that up for you.

You’re confusing responding to an argument by insulting the person making it (you) with describing a character type (me). 

Of course - you keep telling yourself that - we'll just ignore the insulting generalisations in your posts while you try to pull other posters up on perceived insults in their posts.

Only to you Gabriella, only to you…

I doubt that. But you already knew that.

First, Susan said, “Of course a child feels more secure when brought up in a  caring family environment along with its traditions, but if that child – as children do – trusts that what those adults are teaching him is true and then finds out later that information they have vbeen given as factual turns out to have no objective evidence because  it needed 100% faithwhen they look for it, that  trustt will crumble into dust.

If, on the other hand the adults around a child always say this is what we believe to be true then there would, later on, be understanding.”


She made no reference to meaning by that only children with British passports.

That was in the context of faith schools in the UK. If you want to talk about the US, fine, I don't. Have a discussion with Susan about it.

Second, trauma caused by losing parents’ religion isn’t country specific. Presumably its incidence and severity increases with the level of religiosity of the society involved, but it’s a generalised phenomenon.

Got any stats? Yes there are incidents of trauma - if you want to discuss specific incidents in the UK that you are aware of, ok. It would be like discussing specific incidents of extremism. For you to generalise it you need to show how widespread it is.

Third, having had your Father Christmas analogy falsified why (once again) have you veered away into more irrelevance rather than deal with it? Consider NS just now very decently acknowledging that he mis-spoke when he referred to Dunning-Kruger. Would it really kill you to show similar decency in future?   

You didn't respond to my point about how material the effect was - you seem to ignore points when it suits you and instead incorrectly claim you have falsified something. If that's how you want to use this forum - ok.

Your perceptions of decency is irrelevant - not surprisingly the only person your subjective assessments are important to is you.

[ProfessorDavey]

That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty

Blimey that was hard work.

And on what basis do you make that assertion - when have I ever made a claim of that nature. Why would you assume that from what I wrote in reply 306. Why didn't you just ask me to clarify what I meant rather than make assertions as to my motives and beliefs in making my comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty

You do recognise that your comment is fundamentally oxymoronic, don't you?

[Nearly Sane]

Blimey that was hard work.

And on what basis do you make that assertion - when have I ever made a claim of that nature.

Well since it was what I was talking about, what other reason would you have to challenge it?

[Nearly Sane]

You do recognise that your comment is fundamentally oxymoronic, don't you?

Not in context.

[ProfessorDavey]

Well since it was what I was talking about, what other reason would you have to challenge it?

No you are inferring what my beliefs are - in other words that I believe:

'That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty'

I am challenging you as to why you might think that (and by the way you are wrong).

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yes. Try these articles from the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies for example:

http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx

Incidentally, you have a dodgy habit of first denying a phenomenon, then when that becomes unsupportable responding with demands for data about incidence (how many cars does advertising sell then?, how many people suffer from the syndrome? etc).

You do realise that just because you call it dodgy that doesn't make it true. It probably does seem dodgy to you that someone is challenging your statements by asking for evidence - must be very trying for your ego. But that tends to happen on a Message Board. Hope it's not too traumatic for you.

Also I didn't deny it - #305 I said "I can't imagine it's any harder for them than figuring out Father Christmas isn’t real" and concluded with "Do you have any evidence on this because I have never encountered anyone who felt their trust crumbled into dust?".   

Feel free to have the decency to withdraw your remark about me denying a phenomenon. 

If you are trying to make a generalised point then the number of incidents is very relevant. If however, you are trying to make the point that a small number of individuals suffer from trauma then I'd agree with you - no doubt a small number of individuals do suffer from trauma. 

Presumably the number of people in the UK who suffer Religious Trauma Syndrome is unknowable because most keep it to themselves, but there must be significantly enough for academics write articles about it.   

Define "significant enough" and show why something that happens to an unknowable number of people can be generalised. Is that your idea of evidence and reasoning?

You have a very dodgy habit of making vague claims and expecting people to take them seriously. See what I did there?

[Nearly Sane]

No you are inferring what my beliefs are - in other words that I believe:

'That atheists don't make statements of certainty about things that don't merit certainty'

I am challenging you as to why you might think that (and by the way you are wrong).

I don't think that. I think and stated the opposite which is where this all started. Since you challenged the case I was citing of atheists teaching certainty without merit, it seemed reasonable to assume you would have to have some reason to do so.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't think that. I think and stated the opposite which is where this all started. Since you challenged the case I was citing of atheists teaching certainty without merit, it seemed reasonable to assume you would have to have some reason to do so.

My point was entirely pedagogical (hence the relentless asking of the subject that was being taught, and whether this was directly part of curriculum delivery rather than a private conversation) - nothing whatsoever about the belief system (or lack thereof) of the educator.

Perhaps if you had asked rather than jumping to conclusions and making baseless assertions then you would have understood.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Yes. Try these articles from the British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies for example:

http://www.babcp.com/Review/RTS.aspx

Incidentally, you have a dodgy habit of first denying a phenomenon, then when that becomes unsupportable responding with demands for data about incidence (how many cars does advertising sell then?, how many people suffer from the syndrome? etc).

Presumably the number of people in the UK who suffer Religious Trauma Syndrome is unknowable because most keep it to themselves, but there must be significantly enough for academics write articles about it.   

The article you liked to here is the same as the one you linked to in #321 - it's by the same person Dr Marlene Winell.

Firstly, she is talking about a specific type of religion, not all religion:

"The kind of religion that causes damage is that which requires rigid conformity in order to survive in the group or have hope for the afterlife. Such a fundamentalist religion has a closed system of logic and a strong social structure to support an authoritarian worldview...

Most of these churches also believe in demons quite literally, some to the point of using exorcism on children who misbehave. One former believer called it ‘bait-and-switch theology -- telling me I was saved only to insist that I was barely worth saving’."

Secondly, while Dr Windell's theories about this syndrome link to similar things for other disorders, I don't know what her credentials are or if anything she published been peer-reviewed. She seems to have a PhD.

At least according to this thread from 2012 where ex-Christians were searching for background info on her she does not seem to have had anything peer-reviewed - maybe something on this syndrome has peer-reviewed since?

https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/50269-dr-marlene-winell/

[Nearly Sane]

My point was entirely pedagogical (hence the relentless asking of the subject that was being taught, and whether this was directly part of curriculum delivery rather than a private conversation) - nothing whatsoever about the belief system (or lack thereof) of the educator.

Perhaps if you had asked rather than jumping to conclusions and making baseless assertions then you would have understood.

asked what?

[SusanDoris]

Gabriella

Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I  decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.

If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Gabriella

Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I  decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.

If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect

Tap dancing and cheerleading.

[Nearly Sane]

Gabriella

Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I  decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.

If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect

Not sure what the point of listening to posts is in relation to perception. Reading doesn't have a tone different from listening unless it is superimposed by the brain and that would surely apply to listening too? If you know it's a post by someone you disagree with, your brain could easily impose tone on what you listen to.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella

Since I posted this morning I have of course, this being Thursday, been tap dancing, so I  decided to read through all posts before responding to
Yours on the point about trust or faith crumbling into dust.
Fortunately, bluehillside’s posts answer all points in a way that I agree with.

If you remember, I listen to all postswhich are read in exactly the same fashion, with no altered pitch or inflexion.
You might be interested – but probably not – to know that the words themselves indicate to me that you appear to think your posts are, or should be, admired by all. I find the disdainful comments you include have a different effect

Susan

If imagining my possible motivations and posting the above comment on this forum provides you with some mild enjoyment, ok. I post on here for mild enjoyment too.

The back and forth stuff between me and BHS is a game - as in no point in anyone taking it seriously. BHS does his style of posting when challenging posts and I do mine. Your preference of people's style of posting  is up to you. I'm not looking for a cheerleader, though you seem to feel it's part of your enjoyment of this forum to provide that service for posters you agree with. But if you feel like adding to the entertainment by  booing and hissing when my posts come along - ok.