• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Entitlement Culture

William Rea

William Rea

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2010
Messages
8,951
Reaction score
2,232
Location
UK
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Socialist
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?
Click to expand...

Can you give an example of what you mean by "entitlement for a particular claim"?
 
Praxas said:
Can you give an example of what you mean by "entitlement for a particular claim"?
Click to expand...

I gave four which I figured encompassed many of the claims I see on forums, social media and real life which were gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns?

I have seen people claim that they are being watched over by faeries who have gotten very defensive about it when asked to substantiate the claim. They pretty much expect their claim to get a free pass like they are entitled to not have it challenged. In terms of gods, which is probably the most serious claim made, well in some cases they are given a free pass in law in some countries and culturally in others. I am interested in justification for this and in the kick back we observe when certain claims are asked to share equal space.
 
William Rea said:
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?
Click to expand...

This seems to be a demand for people who believe in religion to explain why rational people should lend their belief systems any credence.

I think he is asking those of us who believe in some yet-to-be-proven existence in deity to justify pushing fantasy rather than accepting a factual, scientific, naturalist world-view.

I guess a rational argument in favor of religion would be that morality is not a "fact-based" idea, but rather an effort to get people to act contrary to "natural" animalistic urges by positing a higher power...a "parental figure" if you will, to keep people in line.

IMO this should be in the religion forum.
 
Last edited:
William Rea said:
I gave four which I figured encompassed many of the claims I see on forums, social media and real life which were gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns?

I have seen people claim that they are being watched over by faeries who have gotten very defensive about it when asked to substantiate the claim. They pretty much expect their claim to get a free pass like they are entitled to not have it challenged. In terms of gods, which is probably the most serious claim made, well in some cases they are given a free pass in law in some countries and culturally in others. I am interested in justification for this and in the kick back we observe when certain claims are asked to share equal space.
Click to expand...

As long as it is not harming anyone, why should anyones beliefs be challenged?

If someone wants to believe in faries , Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster,or whatever they chose to feel the need to worship, if it isn't harming me, I really don't care.
 
William Rea said:
I gave four which I figured encompassed many of the claims I see on forums, social media and real life which were gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns?

I have seen people claim that they are being watched over by faeries who have gotten very defensive about it when asked to substantiate the claim. They pretty much expect their claim to get a free pass like they are entitled to not have it challenged. In terms of gods, which is probably the most serious claim made, well in some cases they are given a free pass in law in some countries and culturally in others. I am interested in justification for this and in the kick back we observe when certain claims are asked to share equal space.
Click to expand...

Ok, that's easy, it's called faith. They have faith that they are correct. I don't see anyone claiming they are entitled to not have it challenged (unless it is in the religious forum here, which then could be against the rules depending on how you write it).

Now the kick-back you mentioned is like what happens when folks say that every candidate should be given debate time on the hosted debates they get kick back from the two major parties and rules are instituted that only a "major" party (i.e. polling 14% or more) can be on the stage. Many people feel that only the "major" religion (or even religion) should be given priority because to recognize all the other would amount to "chaos". I don't happen to agree with that method, but that's the mentality.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This seems to be a demand for people who believe in religion to explain why rational people should lend their belief systems any credence.

I think he is asking those of us who believe in some yet-to-be-proven existence in deity to justify pushing fantasy rather than accepting a factual, scientific, naturalist world-view.

I guess a rational argument in favor of religion would be that morality is not a "fact-based" idea, but rather an effort to get people to act contrary to "natural" animalistic urges by positing a higher power...a "parental figure" if you will, to keep people in line.

IMO this should be in the religion forum.
Click to expand...

If one is an atheist, it is more philosophical than religion. He's asking the method of belief and why someone would choose that belief over others. Also, since the religion forum is highly moderated, I suspect, IMO, he wants the ability to discount someone's religion if they cannot "prove" to his satisfaction the belief.

Fact is that faith does not need to be "proven" for someone to believe it and I reject his claim that people of faith are feeling entitled to not have their faith challenged. I challenge my friend's belief all the time and they challenge mine. It's called debate.
 
WTH is a "faeries"

or "faries"

djl
 
William Rea said:
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?
Click to expand...

You are obsessed. Join a 12 step program. lol... :lol:
 
This is not what I was expecting from the title of this thread.
 
William Rea said:
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass. So here are a few pointers that you can agree with or disagree but, if you don't feel that they are applicable to your delusion, I would like to be convinced as to why that is so.

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

It matters not a jot to me if you claim gods, dualism, faeries or Leprechauns, I treat them all with the same method to the best of my ability. So other than a perceived entitlement for your particular claim, what actually makes your claim so special that you feel it deserves a free pass in our culture and politics? Why do you not strive to want to 'know' as many 'true' things as possible?
Click to expand...

A person can only believe what they believe, and I don't know that I'v noticed religious folks trying to "force" me to "give them a pass." Most of the time, they'll just state their beliefs and let it go at that.

Many of the religious folks here know I'm an atheist and they don't harass me about it. Likewise, I don't harass them for their beliefs.

Our Constitution says that freedom of religion is a right in this country, so we probably ought to respect the rights of others to believe or not to believe.

At least we don't live in a Muslim nation where religion is forced on us through law. We're pretty lucky here in the US and I think all people have good traits, no matter what their religious beliefs.
 
Captain Adverse said:
This seems to be a demand for people who believe in religion to explain why rational people should lend their belief systems any credence.

I think he is asking those of us who believe in some yet-to-be-proven existence in deity to justify pushing fantasy rather than accepting a factual, scientific, naturalist world-view.

I guess a rational argument in favor of religion would be that morality is not a "fact-based" idea, but rather an effort to get people to act contrary to "natural" animalistic urges by positing a higher power...a "parental figure" if you will, to keep people in line.

IMO this should be in the religion forum.
Click to expand...

I am demanding nothing.

I am asking why my 'philosophy' that I apply to all other claims only appears to be 'controversial' when applied to particular claims.

You can point out where my philosophy lacks reason rather than go straight for the religion if you so wish.

It doesn't have to be about religion but, I know that is where it will go anyway so I called it out.
 
Polar Bum said:
As long as it is not harming anyone, why should anyones beliefs be challenged?

If someone wants to believe in faries , Santa Claus, the flying spaghetti monster,or whatever they chose to feel the need to worship, if it isn't harming me, I really don't care.
Click to expand...

Sure, I rolled that up into 'trivial/non-trivial' but, if you want to explicitly call it out then I agree. My liberal inclinations would also make me lean towards the 'it causes no harm' outlook if it didn't cause any harm.
 
OlNate said:
You are obsessed. Join a 12 step program. lol... :lol:
Click to expand...

It interests me Nate, if it doesn't interest you then there are lots of other topics around here.
 
HowardBThiname said:
A person can only believe what they believe, and I don't know that I'v noticed religious folks trying to "force" me to "give them a pass." Most of the time, they'll just state their beliefs and let it go at that.

Many of the religious folks here know I'm an atheist and they don't harass me about it. Likewise, I don't harass them for their beliefs.

Our Constitution says that freedom of religion is a right in this country, so we probably ought to respect the rights of others to believe or not to believe.

At least we don't live in a Muslim nation where religion is forced on us through law. We're pretty lucky here in the US and I think all people have good traits, no matter what their religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

You make a good point actually, I am wasn't thinking of this from a specifically UScentric point of view when I put it up.

I don't want to get bogged down in one specific constitution and make this a US bashing thing so I would appreciate if everyone could take that as read from here.
 
William Rea said:
It interests me Nate, if it doesn't interest you then there are lots of other topics around here.
Click to expand...

I'm just worried about ya, buddy...you're seeming a little evangelical with all these threads. I'll pray for you. ;)
 
OlNate said:
I'm just worried about ya, buddy...you're seeming a little evangelical with all these threads. I'll pray for you. ;)
Click to expand...

Don't worry about me dude, I've got it covered.

You can go seek counsel with your delusion if that's how you roll but, I will say that your concern is touching.
 
William Rea said:
Don't worry about me dude, I've got it covered.

You can go seek counsel with your delusion if that's how you roll but, I will say that your concern is touching.
Click to expand...

lol...get better soon, bud. :)
 
William Rea said:
There seems to be a fixation among 'militant internet theists' with some kind of perceived hypocrisy on the part of others for not giving their delusion a free pass.
Click to expand...

Whate exactly does this have to do with entitlement? And why are there so many threads about religion in the philosophy section when there's actually a whole sub-forum devoted to religious discussions?
 
MrWonka said:
Whate exactly does this have to do with entitlement? And why are there so many threads about religion in the philosophy section when there's actually a whole sub-forum devoted to religious discussions?
Click to expand...

It doesn't have to be about religion, I already said that but, I conceded that that is where most people will go because religion poisons everything.

We can talk about this if you prefer...

1. I assume that reality exists.
2. I assume that I can learn about it.
3. I assume that I can make useful predictions from that knowledge.
4. I lack belief in non-trivial claims made without evidence.
5. I form working beliefs about trivial claims made without evidence.
6. Forming working beliefs enables me to navigate reality without constantly referring back to first principles.
7. I assume my assumptions until they are shown to no longer work or, they work less effectively than if I made an alternative assumption.

What is practically irrational about those things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom