the way 'modern' strawberries get nice & red.

in metaphors in lacking in most hardcore 'scientific atheists' apparently.

Does this mean that you assign the name-calling to the non-scientific theists?

The word 'ugly' was put in quotes to communicate not actual ugliness but metaphoric ugliness.

I am a 'scientific atheist' (though I prefer the label ignostic) with Buddhist leanings. I am quite aware of how both theists and atheists present themselves. Often, like in this instance, it is very antagonistic towards each other.

An atheist communicates something, and a theists jumps all over them. A theist communicates something, and an atheist jumps all over them. Red team versus blue team in the 'religion' arena.

Certainty and uncertainty are both are part of life. Often, it does seem like both camps can not handle holding that paradox in consciousness without resorting to victim hood & rage.

The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

- Niels Bohr, in remarks after the Solvay Conference of 1927, as quoted in Physics and Beyond (1971) by Werner Heisenberg

but this quote is not one of them. He is simply wrong.

Religions use images, parables, and paradoxes not because they don't grasp reality or to avoid reality. Instead they are used to 'communicate' reality to more than one person at a time - cultural metaphors and symbols as you will. How do we subjectively understand and communicate the objectiveness of reality?

That human beings always literalize metaphors and metaphorize literals is another discussion.

Linguistics shows us how much of our 'thinking' and 'communicating' are metaphors and symbols. Even our richest scientific observations and understandings require metaphor and symbols to communicate it. Please describe to me the exact literalness of a 'quark'. The word 'quark' is a symbol of the literal 'object' that is a subjectively communicated.

Ironic that Bohr's will say that splitting reality into objective and subjective won't get us far but in his first sentence criticizes the 'religious' way of recognizing the subjective and silently places that in opposition to the objectiveness of the 'scientific' way.

Either/Or versus Both/And.

Or about a person, that they are metaphorically ugly when young, and perfectly normal for their age, so that an immature strawberry can stand in for them?

"An atheist communicates something, and a theists jumps all over them." - see reply #2 for details. Or an 'ignostic', in that case.

I encourage you to study the science of linguistics and in particular metaphors.

Please stop metaphorizing literals and literalizing metaphors.

Do you have any more snarky names you would like to call me?

Don't worry, I'm not angry - I just didn't use a winking smiley. But if you're going to say that language means what you say it means, then you run the risk of being called 'Humpty Dumpty'.

An accurate description of certain members of a class of objects caused you to internalize the statement as a personal attack on yourself?

I don't know you as an individual, and until today, I have had no interaction with you on these forums. Therefore, the likelihood that I was speaking directly to you in describing you personally is astronomically slim.

I added a visual clue with my 'wink' to show as well as could be on these forums that what I may be saying was 'true', it was not being said to provoke a fight. Furthermore this is not the 'protected' group for Atheists.

Interestingly enough because you seem to believe that what I said described you or even if it didn't, it directly impacted you emotionally, you responded in such fashion that my observation and tentative conclusion is that yes, you confuse metaphors and literals, you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and you do not seem very pleasant to converse with.

I honestly believe that you did not intend that to be my take-away from this sub-thread.

It looks like it's going to take a lot to get you to realise this. I don't think your wink helps; to join a thread with a mild insult of a significant part of the likely readership of your remark, but to 'wink' while doing it, just looks like you trying to find an excuse to make the insult. No, we don't know you well in this group, and that makes it harder to accept that you didn't actually mean to insult a large group ('most'; that was in reaction to one remark from an unknown person on an unknown site; or it's a prejudice you hold).

You don't seem very pleasant to converse with either. But maybe, over the course of several threads, you will realise that, and that using insults in opening remarks is not a good idea.

is the test, this group would be as empty as the Wyoming Group.

At least it wasn't a cartoon of Humpty Dumpty.

Perhaps you are over identifying with the label as opposed to the experience which is an entirely different thing?

My understanding is that this is the Religion Group and not the Atheist Group. If gentle criticizing of behaviors of a 'class' now rises to the level of 'insults' then the sensitivity level does not leave a whole lot of room for difficult, deep or meaningful discussion. I am absolutely certain that as an atheist you have leveled far more venomous insults at various religions just from your responses to me in this thread.

I am not entirely new to this Group, and I have made other posts in other threads on various topics both in support of & in criticism of - certainly with far more detailed exposition than a short comment with a wink.

As a young man, I tended to over identify with the classes & groups I was a part of such that all criticism was perceived as personal insults. I take to heart what Dr. Rupert Sheldrake describes in this quote: "The science delusion is the belief that science already understands the nature of reality in principle, leaving only the details to be filled in." This rigidity of thinking is no different than the 'jumping Jesus freak's' insistence on theistic certainty.

Personally, I am not as sensitive. I can even weather a few insults of my chosen philosophies and professions these days with quite a bit of pleasantness and ease. So no, you are not going to convince me that my simple post is as big of a deal as you are making of it. Are all 'scientific atheists' devoid of a sense of mystery, unaware that not everything is known, unable to tolerate ambiguity, and slow to understand or accept metaphors and symbols? No, of course not. Yet I still see quite a few both here on these forums and elsewhere that are exactly this way. I suspect that having come from a religious upbringing the need to be 'opposite' all that theistic religions stands for explains much of this behavior.

Does it explain yours in response to me in this thread?

You have, after all, written a lot more in this thread in reply to me than I to you. What best explains my responses to you is your condescending "Reading comprehension is a virtue". That's what made it personal. You continued to be condescending with "I encourage you to study the science of linguistics and in particular metaphors. Please stop metaphorizing literals and literalizing metaphors", "What an unpleasant and angry person you are", "you are overly sensitive", "An accurate description of certain members of a class of objects caused you to internalize the statement as a personal attack on yourself" and "you confuse metaphors and literals, you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder, and you do not seem very pleasant to converse with".

This is what makes you unpleasant to interact with. You started with a mild insult of a group, and then quickly moved to attacking me.

You are definitely someone I would prefer not to have further communications with.

I perceive you as being overly sensitive, equally as insulting, angry, and a poor communicator.

You perceive me as being insulting, condescending, and attacking.

Now whether or not this is just the limitations of the written medium that is the Internet, we will never know as I sincerely doubt we would ever have off-board interactions.

Therefore, the conclusion is already agreed upon.

The next time I comment in this forum on a topic (especially a critical post), take a moment to realize that it isn't personal, and don't reply.

I will not reply to you directly in a thread so it will be easy to see that I am not 'attacking' or 'insulting' you so no reply to me will even be necessary.

And if you do choose to reply, I will not engage you as I have no desire to derail a discussion or debate with your own personal psychological issues instead of the topic at hand.

Good day to you.

I totally got the Humpty Dumpty reference and thought it was funny and not "angry." But I'm an English teacher so I'm in the minority nerd-wise.

For ugliness to be used metaphorically it would need to be symbolic of something else.

The green strawberry was used as a metaphor for ugliness, and not a very good one. If one were to say "she was a green strawberry to him" would anyone understand it to mean ugly? A metaphor that needs explanation attached is not a good one.

the metaphor was 'good' or 'bad' - only that the 'ugly' strawberry communication was metaphoric & the 'science' reply was literal.

Which I don't really care much about, just making the point that you're taking others to task for purportedly getting something wrong that you yourself got wrong in a different way.

The word 'ugly' acted as the qualifier for the strawberry metaphor. Without that word, the point the author was attempting to make was lost.

Like I said, I agree that it was not a 'good' metaphor all in all.

What I took to task was the literalness of the 'scientific' response as opposed to accepting that the author was attempting to use the reddening of the strawberry as a metaphor for 'life'.

Perhaps a response to the metaphor instead of the 'science' was more in order?

I guess atheists and scientist just have higher standards.

My standards are pretty damned high. I just don't always push others around me to live up to my standards.

You admitted you the metaphor was weak. And I'll bet you didn't really think that overused "scientist/atheist" slam was particularly clever either.

You put a smiley with a little guy peeking over a couch. I responded with a wink and a laugh smiley to let you know that I was not in the least bit offended. Context and reading comprehension again, people. Did you only read the subject and not the body? Is sarcasm lost completely in the written form?

I am a fucking scientist and 'atheist' as well. I put the word in quotes because I am so unconcerned with God or gods that I don't even consider a discussion for or against to be relevant. I am interested in human beings, psychology, religion as a social institution and expression of culture, the human need for ritual, etc.

Is everyone in here always so quick to jump to the defense/offense in every discussion where a little criticism and disagreement is occurring particularly with regards to atheists?

Lighten up Francis!

No smilies for you.

They reveal so much about themselves.

Here's a smiley for you.

A green strawberry is assumed to be 'ugly'? Since when?

over being called out by Skinner for attempting to label atheism as a religion?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/121896000

directly responds to the article.

Shall we ask Skinner if his comment was a callout?

How silly of me.