[irrelig]And here we go … the talk with Leighton’s brother Sean ran a marathon 3+ hours, from which we have distilled the resulting two episodes. A quick summary: Sean repeatedly castigates us for not showing proper respect to ludicrous and patently untrue beliefs while simultaneously approving of his Church’s attempt to deprive homosexuals of basic human rights. He refuses to answer important, pertinent questions regarding his faith, blithely ignores reality, and even Godwins us at the end of the first episode. What I found most impressive is that he remained cheerfully impregnable to reason and logic all the way to the end.
Since we’ve missed a few weeks in the past, we figure it’s only fair to release both episodes at once. Have at them.
63 Responses to “54 & 55: Respecting Other People’s Beliefs”
Thought you’d never post this ep.
DEAD LINKZ?@!!?!?!!!!111~!
Fixed. I don’t know what happened — the links worked last night when I tested them out. It must be the hand of God.
You never can trust Charley to do something right the first time.
boggsj: Personally, I went through the Podcast Feed page.
The overall impression I got was Sean was speaking like he was afraid his bishop might listen to this and if he gave a straight answer he would get in trouble. This is not my idea of defending one’s faith, but then again my idea involves balls and chopping blocks.
The most cringe-worthy moment was the “you make your wife and children cry” argument. Well, having their families believe in and defend demonstrable falsehoods make Chuck and Leighton cry. What of it?
Over all I thought Sean did well. At some points I actually felt bad for the guy because he was so out matched and never really rallied to the point of throwing out any apologetic for the questions you asked.
One cannot simply continuously step aside in a self-deprecating manner, differing to the person asking the question (as Sean did by constantly saying Charlie and Leighton would know more about X). At some point Sean has to own his shit – that is to say, he needs to know why his beliefs are correct and why they ought to be respected.
In the intellectual arena, respect is not a given, and I think this is where Sean is mis-guided in his approach to life and his intellectual endeavors.
If you put out some bat-shit crazy idea, intellectuals will shred you and go to great lengths to crush the rudiments of the idea. They have to because logic is rigorous and it and it’s byproducts are a harsh mistress. I consider it the only honest discourse out there, and the only way of coming closer to the truth.
I understand what Sean is saying and why. Religious belief is almost always treated with deference with the unstated understanding that ‘you won’t attack my bat-shit holy truths and I won’t attack yours’ *wink *wink. But that is wholly dishonest and completely disrespectful.
In maintaining your beliefs can be absurd and must be respected you are stating that you are too lazy and apathetic to care about the truth.
Two claims, each the counter of the other, produce a contradiction and contradictions cannot exist respectfully. One or the other has to be destroyed as a matter of discourse and dialectics.
You cannot claim Jesus was the son of God when eyewitnesses say he was born to Mary. You cannot claim Mary was a virgin when early jewish apologists pointed out in the 1st century that Matthew mistranslated a passage in Issiah. You can’t claim Smith was a prophet when virtually everything he claimed and taught has been shown false – everything.
In this age of DNA testing we know, 100 percent, without any doubt, not even the smallest amount, that natives are not, were not, nor were they ever Jews. This alone should invalidate the entire mormon religion.
So why are their mormons? Is there an allegorical movement in Mormonism like there is in Christianity that treats all the texts as hidden gnostic truths?
I just don’t get the span and breadth of indecent ignorance. I really don’t.
When I did my studies, I struggled with the truth, sure. But I admitted my doubts, I talked about them, I understood the arguments being used on each side.
Where was any of that? All I heard were emotional appeals and the repeated childish chorus line, respect, respect, respect.
I am so tired of people shrugging when shown ample evidence of their beliefs being lies, and their continued belief in such false hoods. If I wasn’t bald I would pull my hair out. What is it in people that they would knowingly be so apparent and ignorant?
Here are a few points I thought were missing.
1) the other big difference between Prop 8 and Irreligiosophy is that Irreligiosophy is presenting its arguments, and Layton/Leighton/L and Chuck stating their convictions, but they’re not trying to *force everybody to follow those*. Prop 8 doesn’t want to make gay marriage illegal for Mormons, but for everyone.
2) This ties into the issue of respect: As soon as your beliefs affect others, you must allow criticism of them, and yes, humor is a valid form of criticism.
3) Is it ok to mock people behind their backs, but not to their faces? Not if you put it like that. But there *are* different venues of communication that allow for different modes – it is okay for boxers to beat each other up in the ring, but not at a family dinner. And if you erect a no-holds-barred zone with your podcast, well, then, you know what you’re getting into.
What a waste of time. If you haven’t downloaded these episodes, don’t bother. Every single time there is even a remote possibility of an interesting conversation, Sean runs and hides under his mommys skirt with “I’m not here to discuss that.” I mean what was the point of this? Basically Seans position is: hes going to believe what he wants to believe no matter what, and it hurts his feelings when you say bad things about his silly beliefs that make him think.
This is the first episode of Irreligiosophy that has truly disappointed me. Every other time you have had guests on your show, they have engaged in the discussion, even if they didn’t share your views. These two episodes remind me of Matt Dilahunty debating Matt Slick on The Atheist Experience. A complete waste of time. Perhaps in a future episode, Chuck can rub some AndroGel on Sean before the interview so there can be some meaningful discussion.
I disagree. I thought it was an interesting episode, and I also think that Sean is absolutely right in sticking to the topics he was on to talk about. I think that his reluctance to speak about Prop 8 was quite telling, and for other topics I can understand not wanting to head into unfamiliar territory – if I was an atheist or a skeptic on a believer’s show, I wouldn’t want to talk about stuff I’m not versed in, but the hosts are, without preparation. You can only end up looking bad.
On the other hand, look what happened when the “allowed” topics were discussed. Even then, I think Sean did not have a leg to stand on. All he could say was, “that’s not what I mean by respect” and , as a last resort, come up with the typical relativistic crap of having to respect all beliefs, no matter what they are. In other words, he was evasive even in the topics he was prepared to discuss! He even brought up Hitler and genocide! Which, of course, should have let to, “Well, we have to respect Hitler’s beliefs that Jews are unworthy of life and must be eradicated.”
Well, I just listened to this and all the time I kept wondering why you guys didn’t pop what I think is the fundamental question when it comes to respecting other people’s beliefs.
Sean’s point was that there is no need to insult or call other people “idiots” over what they believe. This is based on his opinion that certain language and bluntness can be disrespectful.
You guys made a good point when you mentioned the 911 terroirists, but I believe you missed the chance. What you should have asked him is:
“You believe in salvation, in heaven and hell. You have a problem with me doing a podcast where I openly insult and criticize other people for believing stupid, medieval things. You don’t do that. You don’t say “Hey, you don’t believe in God? What an idiot”.
However, you do believe that I am wrong and that the God YOU believe in is going to punish me for all eternity with fire and incredible pain for thinking what I think. Is that respect? For you, you can show respect by judging me and thinking that I’m going to suffer forever just for thinking different. That’s fine. If you call me a moron, now you’ve crossed the line.
So, in the end, name calling is, to you, more disrespectful to my beliefs than holding as truth an idea that involves me burning in hell for having another idea.”
THAT was what you should’ve asked.
That would have been a great question for an adherent of any other religion, but unfortunately Mormons don’t believe in Hell. The closest thing is the “Telestial Kingdom,” which is reserved for murderers, rapists, thieves, and atheists. But it’s pretty much like Earth is now, there isn’t any torment involved except the knowledge that you could have lived with God but now you can’t.
Well… as long as there’s still porn…
“When you demand “respect”, you are demanding we lie to you. I have too much real respect for you as a human being to engage in that charade.” — Johann Hari
Sean seemed fundamentally unable to justify his position or his beliefs, but it was still a fun podcast because we all got to participate.
Good job as usual gents, the enemy gets more fearful by the hour! Mwahahhaa
I had a few more comments to make, actually.
First, I want to clarify my remark that Sean should “butt out” – of course it’s a pure pleasure to have believers to debate (or ridicule as the case may be) I used the phrase “respectfully, butt out” more as an obvious (so I thought) and ironic statement about the inherent disrespectful nature of the conversation. A person’s stance on god and spirituality is a product of their whole lifetime, and to call a belief into question, and therefore that persons choices and lifestyle, is by necessity a disrespectful act. I wanted to point that out to Sean in order for him to come to the table with honest intentions. The use of four letter words isn’t worse, it’s just different.
Also, about studying mine enemies; it’s pleasurable to stand toe to toe with an “enemy” on his own turf, his supposed area of expertise. When you bring knowledge of scripture and knowledge of science and logic to bear against a combative believer, their only recourse is to admit defeat, or take their ball and go home, and when they are seen making either choice it furthers our cause- and certainly, we have a cause. When fundamentalism encroaches in our schools and theocracy creeps into our government, we have a civic duty to. . . ATTACK!
Figuratively speaking. For freedom of religion to work there must be freedom from religion.
One more; right after listening to the new episodes, I listened to episode three again by chance, and one of the fellows says “Yeah! Respect the believer not the beliefs.” I thought that Sean would be unpleasant, but if anyone cares, I quite liked him. Boy just needs to put his head on straight 😉
Chuck & Layton, please give the poor lad our regards.
Wow, after Chuck’s speech I want him to run for president. I think Sean is wrong for saying you two disrespect your families. Having listened to every podcast I have heard you both say “Out of respect for your father…” and “My wife is a saint”–honestly thats pretty respectful. Other than that-great podcast.
Man that was agonizing.Sean came across as an almost perfect example of a concern troll. He clearly doesn’t want you guys to be successful, he is a Mormon after all, but he has some advice for you on how you can be more effective. That sort dishonesty seems pretty disrespectful to me. I guess the lesson is more ridicule! More cruel snark!
It might have been useful to try and explain the difference between tolerating someone’s beliefs and respecting them. Sometimes I’ve gotten people to acknowledge the difference between the two, but I’ve little confidence Sean would, or could, do so.
I think Sean has a very odd definition of respect. He seems to think it’s the same thing as politeness. Actual respect is something that a person earns. They do not earn it by skirting around any questions asked of them, prevaricating for a while and then finally falling back on their ‘respect my viewpoint’ defence or Godwinning the argument, as Sean spent most of the podcast doing.
Sean, if you want your beliefs to be respected, you must understand the arena you are placing them in. Freethinkers/atheists/skeptics do not respect ideas or beliefs by default. We blast them with logic and scorn from every side, whatever their nature. Those that survive are held to be true, for now. Then, and only then, will we respect the idea. Until we find a better one, at least. It’s not a polite, nice or respectful process. We’re trying to find the truth, not make everyone feel good. Sometimes the truth is hurtful and nasty, but that’s the price you pay for living in reality.
Like it or not, these ideas are in our arena. They got placed there when churches started trying to force through civil laws to enforce that church’s religious edicts. You can’t do that. That’s the whole point of freedom of religion. We’re not ‘disrespecting’ your beliefs, Sean. We’re not attacking. We’re mounting a defence.
Humour is, and always has been, a brilliant defensive tool. It’s also an instrument of change. By ridiculing the ridiculous, you call attention to things in society that need to change. Nobody is advocating mass-murder, or banning religion. We’re just accusing you of being a bit thick.
Ouch! I’m just a “newborn” atheist, stepping out of the Mormon mold. I think Sean was a very brave soul (or stupid) to have allowed himself to be crucified on your podcast. Does he often engage in “self-destructive” behaviors? Well, I guess that was a dumb question, since he is related to Leighton.
Kudos to Sean.
Hey Sean, if you get to read this, I’m a grandchild of Holocaust survivors. Using the Holocaust card when you get backed up in an argument is itself really disrespectful.
I’d point out to you that we aren’t oppressed because of the religion of Judaism but because of conspiracy theories about our people that we haven’t been able to refute despite our best efforts. People chose to believe those conspiracy despite tons of evidence to the contrary.
When you read those theories, you’ll notice the supposed conspirators’ Temple practices or how they keep kosher, its their last name that is mentioned and if it sounds Jewish its proof of the conspiracy.
Wow, just got through the first part. Intense. A couple points:
1) The guest questioned what good did mocking and scorning ever do? Hmmm. Well, it resulted in the United States of America. Wasn’t Franklin one who heaped all kinds of ribald scorn on the King? And the supreme court in Hustler v Falwell noted mocking and scorn:
“Despite their sometimes caustic nature, from the early cartoon portraying George Washington as an ass down to the present day, graphic depictions and satirical cartoons have played a prominent role in public and political debate…From the viewpoint of history, it is clear that our political discourse would have been considerably poorer without them.”
2) In regards to point one, and I think Charles touched on this, if you have religious beliefs, fine. But if you bring them to the public square, you want laws passed based on your religious beliefs, then you WHOLLY open all aspects of your faith to critical examination. Religion does not, and should not, be given a free pass because it’s religion. If you don’t want your beliefs mocked, then don’t try to pass laws based upon them.
It annoys me no end as well when people who wouldn’t know the history of the rise and fall of Nazi Germany if it jumped on then and bit them on the head go all Godwin’s Law on things completely unrelated.
How do I know Sean knows nothing on the topic? Because the Hebrews weren’t the only ones who died in the concentration camps. Along with them, homosexuals, (atheist) communists, psychiatric patients and Roma suffered the same horrible fate. So it’s a bit rich of Sean bringing Hitler in as an argument against Sean and Leighton when in the same breath he refuses to speak in favour of treating homosexuals as second-rate citizens.
Dear Charlie and Leighton,
I know neither of you are attorneys (ok,I know you’re both only a couple of notches above your average frat boy but that’s ok because it’s funny and you make a good point) but I am in imminent danger of being discriminated against for my atheism at work.
I would like your advice. If I find it agreeable I might ask for your advice regarding how an entire state is discriminating against me for being an atheist.
Anyway, I work for a very well-known national non-profit that helps kids. The charter, bi-laws, and all that crap specifically state that proselytizing is a no-no at this non-profit. Unfortunately I work for a branch of said non-profit in the Bible Belt. My boss, at least two of the board members and the CPO are fundamentalist Christian preachers. All board meetings have a Christian invocation and special events, where the kids are present, often open with a prayer. I tried complaining about this anonymously to our regional coordinator to no avail. Frankly if the kids want to pray over their food, or whatever, I don’t care. I support the kids’ beliefs (even if they will declare me their mortal enemy when they become adults). I do not support the management trying to push their beliefs on me and any kids that may be an atheist like me.
Sometimes I have to fill in for my boss at board meetings. I try to find an excuse to be in the bathroom while they do the invocation but that has limited success because sometimes they wait for me. I think getting up and leaving the room and then coming back would be too obvious. I do at least have the stones not bow my head or close my eyes. Eventually they are going to catch on. I don’t feel that it would be ok for me to mention any of this to my boss because I suspect this would lead to my immediate termination. Despite the fact that my boss is technically “the enemy” we have an excellent working relationship and the preacher on the board, who espouses a particularly misogynistic brand of Christianity, can do nothing but sing my praises.
What would you two do if you were me?
Gidds
P.S. Sometimes I like to wear Muslim-ish clothing to more formal work functions (I am WASPy in ethnicity)just to mess with all of them. It makes them all a little uncomfortable but they don’t dare ask.
One quick point that a couple of commentators touched upon. Sean confounds 1) respecting a person because they are a person, and 2) respecting a person’s ideas and beliefs. These are two different propositions.
1) Fair enough – we should show respect to all sentient beings.
2) Umm no – some ideas are absurd and are therefore ripe for satire, ridicule and scorn.
I am only about 28 minutes into the first segment of the broadcast featuring Sean, but I find his refusal to say whether he is for or against gay marriage to be pure equivocation.
Also, I hope that someplace in these 2 broadcasts, somebody mentions the Mormon church’s construction of its Mega One True Restored Mall in downtown Salt Lake is, at last report, a project to exceed 3 billion dollars being paid in cash by the LDS church.
My questions to Sean would be:
(1) If Jesus is coming back so soon, why is the LDS church building this mega-complex? and
(2) How does it feel to realize that your church is really just a massive real estate development corporation masquerading as a spiritual organization? (i.e., building downtown “Slatican City”, the multi-million dollar resort complex in Laie, Hawaii, its other massive land purchases, etc., ) while squeezing its members for every last penny it can and demanding free services from the members in the form of church callings, church janitorial service, etc.?
Upon re-listening to the podcast, the only regret I have is that I didn’t pin Sean down during his whole pious talk about calling people “fools” and showing people disrespect by quoting the following scriptures:
Psalm 14:1 “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
Matthew 23:15 “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.”
Mark 7:6 “He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.”
Well gosh. God certainly doesn’t respect the beliefs of atheists, and Jesus seems not to have any qualms mocking and scorning those Pharisees. I am left to wonder how many times Sean has prayed to God and Jesus, asking them to be more respectful of other people’s beliefs.
Great episode guys. Here’s my take on it.
Sean called for respect for his beliefs quite a bit but I think what he really meant was special treatment. He seemed to be saying “I have beliefs from which I personally benefit but for which I cannot provide sufficient evidence of which to convince others and I don’t want anyone addressing them with contradictory evidence because it’s personally upsetting.”
Chuck and Leighton, I agree with you in that I am an atheist, I am for an open dialogue with believers, and I don’t think any belief should be treated with kid gloves. I totally support your motivation for doing what you do and I appreciate and thank you for it. It is unfortunate though that only one can change one’s beliefs. They cannot be changed by anyone else, like a door that is locked from the inside. The more you try to force your way in the more damage you do. Personally I love the tone of the show, I love the humor, etc. But when I see you coming to my door I open it voluntarily. I can understand how a believer would feel threatened by your approach. I guess my advice is to just present the facts, which are clearly on your side, and let the believer work through their biases into accepting them. It doesn’t happen overnight and sometimes it won’t happen at all but it’s the only way that works.
I am listening to part 2 of the broadcast and specifically to the discussion about the “translation” of the papyri into Book of Abraham by Joe Smith. Every time Sean is uncomfortable with what he hears or is asked, he squirms and equivocates and declines to respond to the question.
Sean seems like basically a nice guy but he is a coward … and a coward wearing blinders.
OK. My final comment after listening to all the podcast. Sean sure likes the word “respect.” Is that his favorite buzz word? Did he have a fixation on Aretha Franklin as a child? What’s up with that?
Also, I am looking forward very much to your next podcast discussing the temple ceremony. I’ll air out my little green apron with the cute leaves sewn on it just for the occasion.
Oh dear. I’ve gotta say I listened to both episodes back-to-back cringing the whole way. Whilst Sean comes across as a nice, articulate kind of guy, I think that he has well surpassed any level of audible grating that either Chuck or Leighton were ever accused of.
You both need to go on a debate tour with Hitchens – The suave (Hitchens), the comedic/well learned (Chuck) and Leighton.
Sean said disrespect led to the Holocaust.
I beg to differ. Stupid, medieval beliefs about Jews led to the Holocaust.
I agree with Chuck and Leighton. Respect is earned. I’ll respect a belief that harms no one and makes sense, but very few religious beliefs fit into that mold.
Just listened to part 1, will listen to the rest when I get home tonight.
I felt that while Sean was certainly making no effort to justify his belief, and in several cases seemed genuinely accepting that there was no basis in fact for it, there was no point attacking the guy. Religious kids of religious parents are not willing automatons, they are victims of indoctrination – child abuse if you will. Their parents are usually themselves victims too and so on.
Religion certainly deserves mockery for being nonsense, but the answer is education and outreach, not abuse of the victims. Being dismissed as grumpy atheists does nobody any good.
The used car salesman argument is about the most powerful way to get through to an unquestioningly religious adult. Badgering them with facts is pointless – if they valued fact, they wouldn’t be religious.
The question I ask any bible-mugger when they arrive at the door is very simple: “when you personally investigated all the dozens of major religions in the world, what was it that made [insert religion] stand out as the truth and all the others false?”
The answer is, of course, that they didn’t investigate them, and they blindly follow the religion of their parents, perpetuating the nonsense on their own children in turn. Cue the used car salesman argument, and a pitying look saying “why don’t you take your kids to the park instead of dragging them around the neighbourhood preaching things you haven’t even really thought about?”
As a side note on the “retard” issue, I’d invite you to watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUF2i8Anh00 . I agree the word can certainly be used with malice, but with any word (e.g. the c* word) there are occasions, cultures and situations where PC prohibition on the word actually gives it undeserved and undesirable power. Same as the cultural ban on the criticism of religion gives it power.
Rock on irrelig.. giou.. sopholy.
I don’t know; maybe respect lead to the holocaust because nobody wanted to tell the Nazis they were stupid gits?
All the more reason to stop being polite and use more of the f-word, the r-word, the d-work, the c-word, the g-word, the b-word, and the q-word
It seemed like Sean was saying that he respects the beliefs of muslim extremists but not their actions. This cannot work, though. The beliefs lead directly to the actions. Fundy Christians believe that abortion is murder so they blow up abortion clinics and kill doctors. A belief system should only be respected when its because its the right thing to do. I.E. when someone helps those less fortunate because they feel it’s right not because of some kind of reward for doing it.
…I also frequent Pharyngula and I have just found a candidate for “Mims Carter Skunk Dick Of The Week”
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2010/03/a_fine_example_of_apologizing.php#comments
Now if you will excuse me, I will go and bleach my brain.
Just wanted to say that Sean is a deluded, mis-educated young man, just like millions of others. But he also seems to be a very nice, kind, decent guy, unlike millions of others.
I’m always amused by Leighton’s remarks about his father, but dad can’t be too bad if he turns out two sons like Sean and Leighton.
I am really glad you guys did this podcast. It brought out passionate, concise reasons from you guys as to why you mock religion, and why you do the podcast.
When you brought up the 9/11 terrorists to prove the point about respect for beliefs, I feel an equally powerful example would have been the recent edict the pope made against the use of condoms as prevention of AIDS. Catholicism’s latching on of the archaic belief that people should actually wait until marriage to have sex has lead to legislation and reduced funding of birth control programs around the world. For example, during Bush’s time in office here, STD infections and teen pregnancy had risen sharply. Abstinence programs and education are INEFFECTIVE and this has lead to countless people dying of AIDS in Africa and beyond. The Pope’s recommendations are dangerous and deadly, and flies in the face of all available scientific evidence. How could you respect a religion that so carelessly and callously puts the lives of millions at risk?
I like how Sean “allowed” the discussion to go where “he didn’t want” (ep. 55, about 25 minutes in) once he was faced with damning reality.
Very kind of him. And respectful too.
I am waiting for podcast number….oh….maybe…#237 where Sean comes back on and and tells of how he is turning atheist like big bro L. Okay, probably won’t happen but I believe you guys have him thinking and asking himself some difficult questions.
First time I didn’t make it through the entire podcast, listening to poor Sean was just painful, quite literally like a fish out of water, just flopping around pathetically.
OT Glenn Beck has done it now. The Mormon Church has called him on his bullshit.
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/christians-urged-to-boycott-glenn-beck/
You know he’s getting bad when that happens.
Anyone else having problems with the comment system?
I listened to part 2. I thought the “you’re calling your family, your wife fools” was an unfair appeal to emotions. My father and I can have very different political beliefs. I can think, for example, the platform of the party my father supports is foolish. I can go out and mock the HELL out of the party. But does that mean I think my father a fool? Does it mean I have to love my father less?
There was a part of the argument in ep2 that I was actually on Sean’s side. You guys were trying to argue that it didn’t matter if you were respectful or not since neither method would convince a religious person to de-convert.
I’d argue that Sean’s point, that your tone made him shut-down and not even listen, is absolutely true. In principle, if he’s more open to your kinder approach isn’t that better than completely shutting him out? Wouldn’t the approach that keeps people open to your viewpoint give you a better probability of de-converting someone (however slim it is) than repelling them?
If you’re sole goal in an argument is “they must agree with me, or else they’re stupid” then you’re in for a really frustrating argument. If, however, there’s an attempt at mutual understanding, (not just their points, but their motivations) then I think more progress is possible (again, however slim that possibility is).
Too Polyanna? probably… but it’s working for me so far.
Excellent episodes, I think Sean would learn a lot by reading all these comments. I found it very interesting how Sean repeatedly stated how smart Charlie was and how knowledgable he was in various areas, so I would ask Sean Why do you think Charlie’s wrong in this area??
I ask this from experience as when I worked at a restaurant my co-workers would always say; math problem? go ask Mike; spelling question? go ask Mike; car problems? go ask Mike;question about science? go ask Mike, he’s so smart.(not tooting my own horn they just weren’t that bright)But when they found out I didn’t believe in a god, it was How can you not? How can you be so stupid? lol
@Drew: You would have had a point if this was the very first time the misgivings of the LDS Church were argued. On the contrary, this was after many, many emails between Leighton and his family, in which Leighton presented them with evidence.
Sean and everyone else aren’t even interested in keeping their Church honest. They refuse to admit that things like excommunicating people who wrote an objective account of the history of the LDS Church is troubling and objectively dishonest. They have shut down way before this podcast and no amount of politeness and sweetness would cajole them out of their shell.
mikekoz68: This was actually a question that was asked. Unfortunately, with the recorded conversation nearing 4 hours we had to cut out quite a bit. How the question came about was Sean was stating he was constantly searching for the entire truth of things and would bring the answers he found to Charley. In the next breath he said Charley would always point out the flaws in his thinking and the holes in his answers. I believe he was attempting to compliment Charley, but it led to my asking him why, after so many years, didn’t the fact that EVERY answer brought forward had holes in it affect his belief system in any way.
There was actually quite a bit more to the discussion than we even posted and, as is evident, Charley became more and more irritated as the conversation went due to the evasive answers and refusal to admit anything.
Drew: As Somewhere in Greece pointed out, this conversation was after 100+ emails of discussion had passed between my family and I. Sean’s point was hearing what we had to say on the podcast shut him down. Your point is if this “shutting down” is occurring then it’s counterproductive. A couple things, when I’m discussing things with my family or anyone of a religious nature I’m not doing it in the same way we do it on the podcast. We discuss things and I try to point them towards what I’ve discovered so they can ponder it themselves. However, this podcast is made for Skeptics, Atheists, etc. It’s not for the religious and so we approach the discussions differently in this format. This podcast is explicitly for providing information and entertainment to those of us who are likeminded.
Hey Leighton, and Somewhere in Greece, I understand, and thanks for clarifying.
Holy crap. What an amazingly unsatisfying conversation. How can you hold a debate over respecting beliefs without analyzing whether those beliefs are worthy of respect or not? Respect for suicide bombers? Respect for parents that don’t take their children to the doctor when they get sick but instead pray for them until they die of easily treatable complications? Oh, yeah, I fully support respecting them, if by respect you mean beating them with a sock full of quarters until they shit blood.
How about respect for psychics? Astrologers? Homeopathic remedies? Why should any belief system be granted respect when they are demonstrably false? My biggest problem with Sean throughout these episodes, aside from not wanting to be on the record about any specific questions of his belief system, was the equating of what is known as true to the unproved claims of religion. It’s the old creationist trick of calling science and atheism ‘faith’ to put the whole conversation on the footing of equal lies. He doesn’t understand that you don’t say ‘I don’t believe in god, therefore…’, it’s ‘this is not true therefore I don’t believe it’. But his position is ‘I believe, therefore…’, regardless of what follows or conflicts. And that whole point went straight over his head.
This is a pathological problem. Adhering to a belief system in the face of conflict is an emotional response. You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themself into. He’s going to spend a lifetime meditating on the the truth and accuracy of his belief system? What a waste! My biggest problem with religion is that it sacrifices what you do in this life for a promised one later on. So people are happy to be stupid, and fat, and irresponsible, because, hey, this is not the life to live, it’s the next one.
Now I am ranting. Not because my cause is so just, and I am so arrogant to think that I am right about everything, but against the value of beliefs known to be false and which are regarded as cherished, and sacred, and should be unassailable, I have no respect. An they should be mocked, even what I believe if you can make a good case,
One more thing, he was saying you aren’t funny. And you’re dicks. He wouldn’t just come out and say it, so I thought I would help him out.
Happy days everyone, fuck Jesus!
oh yea, I also wanted to say, he needs to come out and really say, really admit actually, that what is truly bothering him is that it’s not just that you guys are being a couple of dicks, it’s what you are presenting is hitting so close to home. To me, he obviously has doubts about his religion, what you two are doing is making him very uncomfortable, and what do we do when we can’t defend what we believe, and yet won’t admit it either? Ad hominem attacks. You aren’t funny, you aren’t respectful, you are just forcing your beliefs on others, and on and on.
Screw Mohammed!
Drew: I can honestly say that all the discussions I had with believers in God or homeopathy, when done friendly and “respectfully”, lead to the conclusion of “I can see your point, but we disagree”. Not one changed mind there. As Matt said in his rant: you can’t be reasoned out of something you haven’t reasoned yourself into. And these beliefs aren’t reasonable, they’re emotional. So you can either make your point of view so emotionally appealing that people consider changing, or you can make *their* beliefs so emotionally unappealing that they do so. And nobody wants to be thought of as a fool.
And let’s face it, if you live in a religious environment then changing your religion – or even becoming an atheist – is not as appealing as sticking to your religion and maybe ignoring things you don’t like (such as Prop 8).
Once you are at least on equal footing, though, then rational arguments might make the difference. If its as appealing to be an atheist as it is to be a believer, then the better argument might close the deal.