Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote
by rosser on Sunday March 02, 2014 @03:30PM
(#7330631)
how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?
It doesn't, at least not necessarily. That is to say, they may (and often probably do) correlate, but as we all know, correlation != causation.
What you're seeing here is just another flavor of blind adherence — namely to the dogma of atheism which dictates that people of faith are by definition delusional.
Re:Colbert turns his funny gun on Snowden in RSA keynote
by dalke on Sunday March 02, 2014 @04:25PM
(#7330833)
If no one is willing to define what "blind adherence" means then it's hard to determine if there's a correlation, as you suggest.
Based on the conversation so far, I interpret it to mean "someone who believes something other than what I believe, and for reasons I don't agree with."
Perhaps the best solution might be to invert things, but I have been unable to find a list of out-of-the-box thinkers. Mostly I find people claiming to be so, without providing any external evidence.
More specifically, please characterize what makes something "blind adherence" vs. "adherence" in general. When can I say that someone blindly adheres to vegetarianism? When can I say that someone blindly adheres to a support of representational democracy?
Going back to the topic, how does that blind adherence prevent someone from being an out-of-the-box thinker of any sort?