AvC: A Case Study
0 views
Skip to first unread message
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 15, 2008, 8:30:57 AM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
“Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
Allan C Cybulskie
Over three out of four Americans have access to the Internet. This
group has posters from all over the world, and is listed as one of the
most popular groups on Google. The fact that there is a correlation
between affluence (and therefore, presumably, Internet access) and
secularity is obviously not enough to account for the high atheistic
population of this group, so we can safely assume that atheists are
much more likely to want to participate in a debate about the value
and validity of religious faith than theists are. This is consistent
with the view that theists are deliberately ignorant, and know that
there is information out there that challenges their faith and they
wish to avoid.
Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to step back and
examine what we see when we consider this group as a microcosm.
Reading books about this revitalized debate between atheists and
theists, I don't entirely recognize the discussion of the "debate" as
the actual "debate" we have on this group. The atheists are constantly
accused of attacking a "caricature" of faith and believers by the
opposition, who always make arguments just as stupid or more stupid
than the ones being attacked (if not the ones they just got through
refuting), but I find that the hypothetical theists addressed by
authors like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett in their books seem to be
much more rational and intelligent than any of the theistic posters
I've seen here. I think the problem's pretty obvious (and it becomes
more obvious, reading their critics): the "Horsemen", if they don't
overestimate their theistic audiences, at least have to give the
impression of overestimating them to maintain the veneer of a
respectful, adult conversation. I think this group is evidence that
any kind of a dialogue is beneficial to atheists (and therefore the
human race): put AvC on live TV, and the next generation of humans
could only be less theistic.
“Unlike all that claim to be Christians you can only tell a real 100%
Christian by the FACT....
- HE OR SHE CARRIES NO MONEY
- HE OR SHE NEVER BUYS OR SELL OR TRADE BUT GIVES AND RECIEVES FREELY
THE SURPLUS.
- HE OR SHE LIVES INSIDE A CITY CALLED "CHURCH" AND IT IS ROUND
- HE OR SHE ONLY SERVES GOD (SURPLUS CREATED FOR THE MOST NEEDY
FIRST)
- HE OR SHE HAVE MANY FRUIT TREES AND PLANT AND GIVE THEM AWAY.
- HE OR SHE RECORD'S THE DAY EVENTS IN DETAIL AND IN THIS AGE RECORDS
THEM IN GREAT DETAIL.
- HE OR SHE IS SEEN MANY TIME SPEAKING TO THE SELF BUT IS RECORDING
THOUGHTS IN THIS AGE.
- HE OR SHE IS OLD/MATURED, IF OUTSIDE THE CITY AND CLOTHED IN THE
MAKINGS OF THE CITY SO ALL KNOW WHERE THAT PERSON COMES FROM.
- A real true christian will act like Jesus as if him even if it take
many or plenty to do it.” – Stonethatbleeds
Consider Stonethatbleeds. I'll admit I haven't put too much effort
into piecing together Stonethatbleeds' worldview (as obvious as it's
apparently supposed to be to me), but it evidently has something to do
with God wanting us all to segregate by race, age, and sexuality into
cities and gain immortality through audio-recordings that will contain
our souls. We naturally form a mental picture of what someone is like
in real life, reading their words, and Stonethatbleeds probably
invokes only the kind of person you see on public transportation
sometimes. If Stonethatbleeds started expressing his ideas to someone
on the bus, they would probably ring the bell for the next stop,
politely excuse themselves from the bus, and then wait for the next
bus to get to their actual stop or else suffer through it. If he were
arrested for pissing on the subway, he would probably get some kind of
psychiatric evaluation. We have to wonder about his job, whether he
screams into tape recorders and a large collection of his own
recordings, if he has friends, how crazy they are or if they're
worried about him, etc. Are there others that share Stonethatbleeds'
perspective? Where did it come from?
But it's worth mentioning that what Stonethatbleeds seems to believe
is not less rational than what any other theist believes. We can be
certain of this without being entirely clear on what this is, simply
by virtue of the fact that theistic beliefs are at a perfect level of
irrationality. There really isn't a gradient as far as theistic
rationality goes--it's more of a matter of...what? Rationalization, I
guess. Or, more specifically, the effort they put into
rationalization. It is interesting to see how other theists respond to
Stonethatbleeds. Some of them try to make fun of him, but usually on
the basis of his writing abilities. We atheists can all have a good
laugh at theists having a laugh at Scientologists, because of the
massive hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness that implies. Seeing a
theist make fun of Stonethatbleeds' views on this group is kind of a
heightened version of that. And I think some of them sort of realize
that, which is why they refrain. On what grounds, exactly, can he be
called irrational by a theist? Rational grounds?
“'stupider' isn't a word, retard” – jesusfreak117
manny, SEARCHER for those who remember him and a few others who didn't
stay long obviously fall into the same category. While theists, who
are essentially all the same, can only be categorized on superficial
levels I think we can form the basis of another category that would
include Brock, omprem and Keith, among others. They don't really
rationalize their points any more than Stonethatbleeds or manny do,
but just seem aware that criticism is taking place. Their response is
to take pride in everything that a rational person would be ashamed of
being caught doing in a debate. If you point out a logical flaw in
their arguments, they take this as evidence that they're above logic.
If you point out a factual inaccuracy, they will repeat the lie to
prove that they think they're too good to tell the truth. This
category, too, is largely arbitrary because I see a lot of theists
(most of them) doing this sometimes, usually when they get stuck.
“They are thinking meta-logically, an ability that is beyond the grasp
of atheists. They are aware that logic is insufficient so they use
other means of approaching wisdom. Your insistence that astrology is
a fraud is not proof that it is so.” – omprem
Other theist posters try to argue as if they are arguing rationally,
but just suck at it. There is an internal gradient here, although it's
hard to quantify precisely and is probably mostly illusory. When a
theist uses arguments to defend theism, they're going to be wrong, and
someone here is going to rationally refute it, and then the theist is
going to keep defending it anyway as their posts go from bad to worse
in the course of a conversation. The relationship between theists is
different than the relationship between atheists on this group. I
think this can largely be attributed to the fact that, without
rationality, they have no consistent grounds on which to agree or
disagree. On one hand, they don't seem to be pals like many of the
atheists here are pals, on the other, they don't really get into
complex disagreements very often like atheists do.
"See, if you simply assert that they are delusional because they
believe that Martians are communicating with them telepathically and
insist that they are simply on that basis, what happens if Martians
REALLY ARE communicating with them telepathically?" – Allan C
Cybulskie
What Allan misses here is the whole process by which mental illnesses
are diagnosed. If someone were to think they were constantly seeing
unicorns, the process by which diagnosis would occur would not involve
the professionals going out and looking for unicorns because that
would not be pragmatic. Allan is one of those theists that tries to be
on rational ground like the atheists, because he isn't as content with
his beliefs as omprem or Stonethatbleeds is. It actually upsets him
that he fails at it, although he would never acknowledge that it's
exactly what's going on.
Anyone who looks into how psychologists deal with the problem of
religion can see that the central differentiation that is made is one
of commonality, which raises a whole slew of logical problems. First
of all, this would imply that theism is the only disease that becomes
not a disease by "virtue" of how contagious it is. If something is a
sickness, it should be assumed that spreading it is a bad thing. Also,
assuming a "culturally normal" belief raises the problem of how many
people have to believe something or how similar the beliefs have to
be--most theists have different religious views, and the act of
churchgoing is largely a group of people pretending to believe the
same thing to reinforce their individual delusions. Someone like Allan
or OldMan is more capable of functioning in some ways than
Stonethatbleeds, but to call them more sane would be like saying an
adult that believes in the Easter Bunny is more sane than a child that
believes the same thing. If anything, their affliction probably runs
deeper.
“Dev wrote:
> Every incidence of religious intolerance involves religion. Proven fact.
Nice try. Now, try providing a reference for your 'proven fact'. I'm
not interested in your opinion.” – OldMan
“Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.” –
Allan C Cybulskie
I tried to explain to Allan that if the "if you can't prove it false,
it's rational to believe" madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
"belief". The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
"amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
"Well, as you and all the other hard atheists in this group believe in
the primacy of the senses and that the senses portray a literal
reality, that makes all of you delusional." – omprem
Theists are individually delusional. They support each other not
because their beliefs are the same, but because of the larger support
system for insane beliefs in general that theism provides. It applies
a veneer of normality to beliefs that are not consistent because they
are not formulated on a consistent basis.
"no one in their right mind will think 1+3 = 4 is better.
it is still wrong, period." – Checkers, to Dev.
"Keepin' him in 'Check' since the beginning." – semi, in response to
Checkers.
Under theism, things that are insane by every rational standard gain
credibility through confirmation. Theists will kill each other for
competing irrational beliefs, but they are all together in a battle
against rationality in general. Thus, in a population like this group
where many of the posters are atheists, they will lend a vague degree
of support to each other. The ambiguity of a God allows theists to be
uniquely insane, yet the nature of theism provides a unique appearance
of consensus that runs the whole gamut.
“People like to float that story around these days to suggest that the
bible advocates genocide. But the same book states he at one point
wiped out the entire human race! I think we need to accept that” –
Chris Grech
“Great points Chris !!.. Thank you !” – reply by Dillan.
Thus, theism is not really "for" anything so much as it is against
intellectual and ethical standards in general. It is through this
phenomenon that a fundamentalist redneck in Kansas will make an
argument for God that is equally applicable to the God of Islamic
terrorists on the other side of the world. If you want to justify
rape, genocide, child abuse, or just plain acting like a moron in
general, you will always have a friend in theism.
Allan C Cybulskie
Over three out of four Americans have access to the Internet. This
group has posters from all over the world, and is listed as one of the
most popular groups on Google. The fact that there is a correlation
between affluence (and therefore, presumably, Internet access) and
secularity is obviously not enough to account for the high atheistic
population of this group, so we can safely assume that atheists are
much more likely to want to participate in a debate about the value
and validity of religious faith than theists are. This is consistent
with the view that theists are deliberately ignorant, and know that
there is information out there that challenges their faith and they
wish to avoid.
Nevertheless, I thought it would be interesting to step back and
examine what we see when we consider this group as a microcosm.
Reading books about this revitalized debate between atheists and
theists, I don't entirely recognize the discussion of the "debate" as
the actual "debate" we have on this group. The atheists are constantly
accused of attacking a "caricature" of faith and believers by the
opposition, who always make arguments just as stupid or more stupid
than the ones being attacked (if not the ones they just got through
refuting), but I find that the hypothetical theists addressed by
authors like Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett in their books seem to be
much more rational and intelligent than any of the theistic posters
I've seen here. I think the problem's pretty obvious (and it becomes
more obvious, reading their critics): the "Horsemen", if they don't
overestimate their theistic audiences, at least have to give the
impression of overestimating them to maintain the veneer of a
respectful, adult conversation. I think this group is evidence that
any kind of a dialogue is beneficial to atheists (and therefore the
human race): put AvC on live TV, and the next generation of humans
could only be less theistic.
“Unlike all that claim to be Christians you can only tell a real 100%
Christian by the FACT....
- HE OR SHE CARRIES NO MONEY
- HE OR SHE NEVER BUYS OR SELL OR TRADE BUT GIVES AND RECIEVES FREELY
THE SURPLUS.
- HE OR SHE LIVES INSIDE A CITY CALLED "CHURCH" AND IT IS ROUND
- HE OR SHE ONLY SERVES GOD (SURPLUS CREATED FOR THE MOST NEEDY
FIRST)
- HE OR SHE HAVE MANY FRUIT TREES AND PLANT AND GIVE THEM AWAY.
- HE OR SHE RECORD'S THE DAY EVENTS IN DETAIL AND IN THIS AGE RECORDS
THEM IN GREAT DETAIL.
- HE OR SHE IS SEEN MANY TIME SPEAKING TO THE SELF BUT IS RECORDING
THOUGHTS IN THIS AGE.
- HE OR SHE IS OLD/MATURED, IF OUTSIDE THE CITY AND CLOTHED IN THE
MAKINGS OF THE CITY SO ALL KNOW WHERE THAT PERSON COMES FROM.
- A real true christian will act like Jesus as if him even if it take
many or plenty to do it.” – Stonethatbleeds
Consider Stonethatbleeds. I'll admit I haven't put too much effort
into piecing together Stonethatbleeds' worldview (as obvious as it's
apparently supposed to be to me), but it evidently has something to do
with God wanting us all to segregate by race, age, and sexuality into
cities and gain immortality through audio-recordings that will contain
our souls. We naturally form a mental picture of what someone is like
in real life, reading their words, and Stonethatbleeds probably
invokes only the kind of person you see on public transportation
sometimes. If Stonethatbleeds started expressing his ideas to someone
on the bus, they would probably ring the bell for the next stop,
politely excuse themselves from the bus, and then wait for the next
bus to get to their actual stop or else suffer through it. If he were
arrested for pissing on the subway, he would probably get some kind of
psychiatric evaluation. We have to wonder about his job, whether he
screams into tape recorders and a large collection of his own
recordings, if he has friends, how crazy they are or if they're
worried about him, etc. Are there others that share Stonethatbleeds'
perspective? Where did it come from?
But it's worth mentioning that what Stonethatbleeds seems to believe
is not less rational than what any other theist believes. We can be
certain of this without being entirely clear on what this is, simply
by virtue of the fact that theistic beliefs are at a perfect level of
irrationality. There really isn't a gradient as far as theistic
rationality goes--it's more of a matter of...what? Rationalization, I
guess. Or, more specifically, the effort they put into
rationalization. It is interesting to see how other theists respond to
Stonethatbleeds. Some of them try to make fun of him, but usually on
the basis of his writing abilities. We atheists can all have a good
laugh at theists having a laugh at Scientologists, because of the
massive hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness that implies. Seeing a
theist make fun of Stonethatbleeds' views on this group is kind of a
heightened version of that. And I think some of them sort of realize
that, which is why they refrain. On what grounds, exactly, can he be
called irrational by a theist? Rational grounds?
“'stupider' isn't a word, retard” – jesusfreak117
manny, SEARCHER for those who remember him and a few others who didn't
stay long obviously fall into the same category. While theists, who
are essentially all the same, can only be categorized on superficial
levels I think we can form the basis of another category that would
include Brock, omprem and Keith, among others. They don't really
rationalize their points any more than Stonethatbleeds or manny do,
but just seem aware that criticism is taking place. Their response is
to take pride in everything that a rational person would be ashamed of
being caught doing in a debate. If you point out a logical flaw in
their arguments, they take this as evidence that they're above logic.
If you point out a factual inaccuracy, they will repeat the lie to
prove that they think they're too good to tell the truth. This
category, too, is largely arbitrary because I see a lot of theists
(most of them) doing this sometimes, usually when they get stuck.
“They are thinking meta-logically, an ability that is beyond the grasp
of atheists. They are aware that logic is insufficient so they use
other means of approaching wisdom. Your insistence that astrology is
a fraud is not proof that it is so.” – omprem
Other theist posters try to argue as if they are arguing rationally,
but just suck at it. There is an internal gradient here, although it's
hard to quantify precisely and is probably mostly illusory. When a
theist uses arguments to defend theism, they're going to be wrong, and
someone here is going to rationally refute it, and then the theist is
going to keep defending it anyway as their posts go from bad to worse
in the course of a conversation. The relationship between theists is
different than the relationship between atheists on this group. I
think this can largely be attributed to the fact that, without
rationality, they have no consistent grounds on which to agree or
disagree. On one hand, they don't seem to be pals like many of the
atheists here are pals, on the other, they don't really get into
complex disagreements very often like atheists do.
"See, if you simply assert that they are delusional because they
believe that Martians are communicating with them telepathically and
insist that they are simply on that basis, what happens if Martians
REALLY ARE communicating with them telepathically?" – Allan C
Cybulskie
What Allan misses here is the whole process by which mental illnesses
are diagnosed. If someone were to think they were constantly seeing
unicorns, the process by which diagnosis would occur would not involve
the professionals going out and looking for unicorns because that
would not be pragmatic. Allan is one of those theists that tries to be
on rational ground like the atheists, because he isn't as content with
his beliefs as omprem or Stonethatbleeds is. It actually upsets him
that he fails at it, although he would never acknowledge that it's
exactly what's going on.
Anyone who looks into how psychologists deal with the problem of
religion can see that the central differentiation that is made is one
of commonality, which raises a whole slew of logical problems. First
of all, this would imply that theism is the only disease that becomes
not a disease by "virtue" of how contagious it is. If something is a
sickness, it should be assumed that spreading it is a bad thing. Also,
assuming a "culturally normal" belief raises the problem of how many
people have to believe something or how similar the beliefs have to
be--most theists have different religious views, and the act of
churchgoing is largely a group of people pretending to believe the
same thing to reinforce their individual delusions. Someone like Allan
or OldMan is more capable of functioning in some ways than
Stonethatbleeds, but to call them more sane would be like saying an
adult that believes in the Easter Bunny is more sane than a child that
believes the same thing. If anything, their affliction probably runs
deeper.
“Dev wrote:
> Every incidence of religious intolerance involves religion. Proven fact.
Nice try. Now, try providing a reference for your 'proven fact'. I'm
not interested in your opinion.” – OldMan
“Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.” –
Allan C Cybulskie
I tried to explain to Allan that if the "if you can't prove it false,
it's rational to believe" madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
"belief". The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
"amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
"Well, as you and all the other hard atheists in this group believe in
the primacy of the senses and that the senses portray a literal
reality, that makes all of you delusional." – omprem
Theists are individually delusional. They support each other not
because their beliefs are the same, but because of the larger support
system for insane beliefs in general that theism provides. It applies
a veneer of normality to beliefs that are not consistent because they
are not formulated on a consistent basis.
"no one in their right mind will think 1+3 = 4 is better.
it is still wrong, period." – Checkers, to Dev.
"Keepin' him in 'Check' since the beginning." – semi, in response to
Checkers.
Under theism, things that are insane by every rational standard gain
credibility through confirmation. Theists will kill each other for
competing irrational beliefs, but they are all together in a battle
against rationality in general. Thus, in a population like this group
where many of the posters are atheists, they will lend a vague degree
of support to each other. The ambiguity of a God allows theists to be
uniquely insane, yet the nature of theism provides a unique appearance
of consensus that runs the whole gamut.
“People like to float that story around these days to suggest that the
bible advocates genocide. But the same book states he at one point
wiped out the entire human race! I think we need to accept that” –
Chris Grech
“Great points Chris !!.. Thank you !” – reply by Dillan.
Thus, theism is not really "for" anything so much as it is against
intellectual and ethical standards in general. It is through this
phenomenon that a fundamentalist redneck in Kansas will make an
argument for God that is equally applicable to the God of Islamic
terrorists on the other side of the world. If you want to justify
rape, genocide, child abuse, or just plain acting like a moron in
general, you will always have a friend in theism.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 10:11:03 AM8/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Geez Dev, between you Drafterman and Lawrey I now have a backlog of articles to post on my New Atheism blog!
I'd like to put this one there too! I know you're going to say okay but I have to ask ;-) Protocol you know...
--
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown
------------------------------------------------
Trance Gemini
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. --Voltaire
Which God Do You Kill For? --Unknown
Love is friendship on fire -- Unknown
Answer_42
<ipu.believer@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 11:18:50 AM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 15, 8:30 am, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> Allan C Cybulskie
<snip>
> “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> Allan C Cybulskie
> Thus, theism is not really "for" anything so much as it is against
> intellectual and ethical standards in general. It is through this
> phenomenon that a fundamentalist redneck in Kansas will make an
> argument for God that is equally applicable to the God of Islamic
> terrorists on the other side of the world. If you want to justify
> rape, genocide, child abuse, or just plain acting like a moron in
> general, you will always have a friend in theism.
Of course, if you refuse to accept reality as being what it is, you
can believe all kinds of silly stuff while convincing yourself that
you are not delusional, and that, in fact, the ones who do not agree
with you are the delusional ones. Ompy is the best example of that.
Now, I wonder what insipid reply Keith will post to try to discredit
your text with one stupid comment...
_____________________________
"If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we
can solve them."
-- Isaac Asimov
Brock
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 12:05:10 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
> Thus, theism is not really "for" anything so much as it is against
> intellectual and ethical standards in general.
The Confession is an excellent counterexample.
> intellectual and ethical standards in general.
http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html
Regards,
Brock
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 12:42:22 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
very interesting post my dear sir,
such a clarity in thinking and from thoughts to words
so beautifully stated.
so nice and thank you.
I am sure, it will help in my education.
enjoy
cheers
student13
omprem
<omprem@magma.ca>Aug 15, 2008, 1:16:56 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
It is interesting that you keep a scrapbook of some of the better
quotes of religionists but it would be even more useful if you made
an attempt to understand them.
It is also interesting that atheists who claim not to believe in God
spend so much time reading religious/spiritual books, visiting
religious/spiritual websites, engaging religionists in conversation
and keeping scrapbooks of religionist comments. The fact that those
who do not believe in God spend so much time reading about God
indicates they subconsciously know God's Presence and are merely
seeking ways to overcome their denseness of consciousness so that they
too can come to God on a conscious level. Good luck with that.
> accusation that couldn't be disproved. His ...
>
> read more
quotes of religionists but it would be even more useful if you made
an attempt to understand them.
It is also interesting that atheists who claim not to believe in God
spend so much time reading religious/spiritual books, visiting
religious/spiritual websites, engaging religionists in conversation
and keeping scrapbooks of religionist comments. The fact that those
who do not believe in God spend so much time reading about God
indicates they subconsciously know God's Presence and are merely
seeking ways to overcome their denseness of consciousness so that they
too can come to God on a conscious level. Good luck with that.
>
> read more
omprem
<omprem@magma.ca>Aug 15, 2008, 1:18:11 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
It won't help your education but it will continue your process of
dumbing yourself down.
> ...
>
> read more »
dumbing yourself down.
>
> read more »
Allan C Cybulskie
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 15, 2008, 1:54:57 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 15, 10:11 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geez Dev, between you Drafterman and Lawrey I now have a backlog of articles
> to post on my New Atheism blog!
> I'd like to put this one there too! I know you're going to say okay but I
> have to ask ;-) Protocol you know...
misrepresents as well, since he is attacking the stances of specific
other people and -- at least in my case -- getting them totally wrong,
or at least set-up a way for people to attach rebuttals to his
mischaracterizations of their views (and I intend to post one here
fairly soon)? In short, since you like bluntness, are you going to
ensure that your cite is presenting an honest and fair account of what
those people argue, or are you going to simply ignore that principle?
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
MEG
<ekrubmeg@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 2:03:33 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Interesting that you jump to the conclusion that atheists read
religious books. Is that another "leap of faith?"
> ...
>
> read more »
religious books. Is that another "leap of faith?"
>
> read more »
zencycle
<zencycle@bikerider.com>Aug 15, 2008, 3:46:14 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 15, 1:16 pm, omprem <omp...@magma.ca> wrote:
>
> It is also interesting that atheists who claim not to believe in God
> spend so much time reading religious/spiritual books, visiting
> religious/spiritual websites, engaging religionists in conversation
> and keeping scrapbooks of religionist comments.
As usual, the egomania of omprem forces him to apply the brakes at
>
> It is also interesting that atheists who claim not to believe in God
> spend so much time reading religious/spiritual books, visiting
> religious/spiritual websites, engaging religionists in conversation
> and keeping scrapbooks of religionist comments.
high speed and
BANG!
The train wrecks again.
You see oompy, if we didn't read about religion A) we wouldn't be so
easily able to refute it and B) you would complain that we can't
refute what we have no knowledge of (you still do that, but you are
shot down at every attempt).
Your religion builds itself up with as much structural integrity as a
sand castle. It looks pretty until one examines it closer, and then
one realizes it can never afford the protection and comfort it claims
to. You still haven't realized that your castle has completely
collapsed around you, leaving your head buried in the sand. But, since
all you can see is sand, you think the castle still stands. Yet, as we
see with everyone of your inane posts, you are hopelessly trapped.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 15, 2008, 4:10:33 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
You're a disingenuous fuck, Allan.
As for your direct quotes, anybody can look those up in context so you
have nothing there. One paragraph was addressing your direct quote. If
you don't like what you say, don't say it. I didn't take anything out
of context to distort its meaning, and anyone can go back and see
that.
Here is the part I didn't initially support with quotes:
Original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ac2fbae033cef746
"It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief."
Original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/acf930fbb3c822cf
"And you don't get to defend it on the basis of 'it's true whereas
theism is false', because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done."
So, there you go. Just addressing what you said, Allan. If you don't
like it, maybe you should consider shutting the fuck up?
On Aug 15, 11:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
As for your direct quotes, anybody can look those up in context so you
have nothing there. One paragraph was addressing your direct quote. If
you don't like what you say, don't say it. I didn't take anything out
of context to distort its meaning, and anyone can go back and see
that.
Here is the part I didn't initially support with quotes:
Original post:
"I tried to explain to Allan that if the 'if you can't prove it false,
it's rational to believe' madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something
like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
'belief'."
Message in question:
it's rational to believe' madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something
like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
'belief'."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ac2fbae033cef746
"It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief."
Original post:
"The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
'amen'--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity."
Message in question:
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
'amen'--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/acf930fbb3c822cf
"And you don't get to defend it on the basis of 'it's true whereas
theism is false', because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done."
So, there you go. Just addressing what you said, Allan. If you don't
like it, maybe you should consider shutting the fuck up?
On Aug 15, 11:54 am, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 15, 2008, 4:12:49 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Glad you liked it. :)
By the way, if you question whether Allan or any of the other idiots
actually said those things, there's something he's not aware of in the
right-hand corner where you can plug those in and find them. ;)
By the way, if you question whether Allan or any of the other idiots
actually said those things, there's something he's not aware of in the
right-hand corner where you can plug those in and find them. ;)
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 15, 2008, 4:20:41 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Yup. And be sure to give a special thanks to Allan for being such a
dumbfuck. :)
(If somebody says something stupid on the Internet, you evidently need
their permission to talk about it.)
dumbfuck. :)
(If somebody says something stupid on the Internet, you evidently need
their permission to talk about it.)
Medusa
<Medusa4303@yahoo.com>Aug 15, 2008, 4:32:56 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
omprem;
> It is also interesting that atheists who claim not to believe in God
> spend so much time reading religious/spiritual books, visiting
> religious/spiritual websites, engaging religionists in conversation
> and keeping scrapbooks of religionist comments. The fact that those
> who do not believe in God spend so much time reading about God
> indicates they subconsciously know God's Presence and are merely
> seeking ways to overcome their denseness of consciousness so that they
> too can come to God on a conscious level. Good luck with that.
I also have read the myths of the Romans; does that mean those gods
are subconsciously affecting me?
Medusa
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 15, 2008, 4:55:17 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Oh, nevermind, you're right. What you guys said wasn't insane, it was
just too much for me to comprehend. Delusions aren't personal
experiences, 1+3=5, there would be religious intolerance without
religion, and you all live in a city called "Church" and it is round.
You guys aren't mentally ill--you're geeeeeeniuses!
What's sick is that you don't even care that you're insane. You don't
give a shit about anyone else or you'd get some fucking help.
just too much for me to comprehend. Delusions aren't personal
experiences, 1+3=5, there would be religious intolerance without
religion, and you all live in a city called "Church" and it is round.
You guys aren't mentally ill--you're geeeeeeniuses!
What's sick is that you don't even care that you're insane. You don't
give a shit about anyone else or you'd get some fucking help.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 8:04:10 PM8/15/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Are you going to get the permission of the people he maligns and
On Aug 15, 10:11 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Geez Dev, between you Drafterman and Lawrey I now have a backlog of articles
> to post on my New Atheism blog!
> I'd like to put this one there too! I know you're going to say okay but I
> have to ask ;-) Protocol you know...
misrepresents as well, since he is attacking the stances of specific
other people and -- at least in my case -- getting them totally wrong,
or at least set-up a way for people to attach rebuttals to his
mischaracterizations of their views (and I intend to post one here
fairly soon)? In short, since you like bluntness, are you going to
ensure that your cite is presenting an honest and fair account of what
those people argue, or are you going to simply ignore that principle?
I always add a link to the thread at the bottom of the article.
So your side will be available.
However, the blog is about New Atheism and represents the viewpoints of atheists on various topics so I don't really have any obligation to present any other side.
However, if you'd like to write rebuttals to any of the analyses on my blog I will post them under the label a theist rebuttal.
I won't do that for most theists, or even most atheists, however your articles would be worth posting because while I disagree with your POV most of the time, it's clear that you put a lot of thought into them and they do represent what I would consider as rational an approach as possible under the circumstances.
So, my invitation is open to you.
I usually post under people's AvC aliases and suggest you provide me with an alias to use.
I don't want any contributors to my blog harassed because of some of the controversial opinions presented elsewhere in the blog, so I'm protecting identities.
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 9:57:32 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Om,
That in nutshell is the difference between "belief" system and
gaining "knowledge" system.
One who believe is bound by the belief and scared to even think.
One who tries to learn, understand has no problem to change when
the process of questioning convinces him.
enjoy
cheers
st13
That in nutshell is the difference between "belief" system and
gaining "knowledge" system.
One who believe is bound by the belief and scared to even think.
One who tries to learn, understand has no problem to change when
the process of questioning convinces him.
enjoy
cheers
st13
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>Aug 15, 2008, 10:00:01 PM8/15/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
It is said that all profound information is freely availble.
One only need to dig a little deep and that needs effort.
So is it not better to go down and look for than to live in a
'belief' system?
enjoy
cheers
st13
One only need to dig a little deep and that needs effort.
So is it not better to go down and look for than to live in a
'belief' system?
enjoy
cheers
st13
29fan
<gode3@yahoo.com>Aug 16, 2008, 6:11:31 AM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
"Interesting that you jump to the conclusion that atheists read
religious books. Is that another "leap of faith?"
They get their information somewhere. Anyone can live their day-to-
religious books. Is that another "leap of faith?"
day life with absoluately no religious thought in their head, they can
do this their whole life. No one can ask, and they don't have to
tell. That's one beauty of freedom. But that's not enough, here and
many similar internet places. Very Nazi-ish; all must justify why
they think and believe as they do , or be punished. But it's only
verbal, from strangers. Place the value of messageboards in your life
appropriately, especially groups created to be confrontational.
Arguments going on for centuries, no one will "win". No point.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Aug 16, 2008, 8:14:48 AM8/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Oh. The Skank Whore is back.
My irony meter just melted again.
Here it is telling us all why we shouldn't be posting to news groups, yet again.
The fact that it constantly to posts to this news group in order to to tells us not to post to this news groups strikes me as somewhat insane but then what more could one expect from this particular Skank Whore.
Allan C Cybulskie
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 16, 2008, 1:52:01 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 15, 8:04 pm, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 15, 2008 at 1:54 PM, Allan C Cybulskie <
>
>
>
>
>
> allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 15, 10:11 am, "Trance Gemini" <trancegemi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Geez Dev, between you Drafterman and Lawrey I now have a backlog of
> > articles
> > > to post on my New Atheism blog!
> > > I'd like to put this one there too! I know you're going to say okay but I
> > > have to ask ;-) Protocol you know...
>
> > Are you going to get the permission of the people he maligns and
> > misrepresents as well, since he is attacking the stances of specific
> > other people and -- at least in my case -- getting them totally wrong,
> > or at least set-up a way for people to attach rebuttals to his
> > mischaracterizations of their views (and I intend to post one here
> > fairly soon)? In short, since you like bluntness, are you going to
> > ensure that your cite is presenting an honest and fair account of what
> > those people argue, or are you going to simply ignore that principle?
>
> I always add a link to the thread at the bottom of the article.
>
> So your side will be available.
>
> However, the blog is about New Atheism and represents the viewpoints of
> atheists on various topics so I don't really have any obligation to present
> any other side.
[grin], but want to note that this post here is not simply an opinion
or argumentation piece but is an attack on specific individuals and
their beliefs. This requires more care and attention, especially if
those people don't agree with Dev's interpretation of their beliefs.
In addition, you comment below about wanting to protect names, but
since real names might be used in the post that wouldn't be the
case ... for the people Dev is attacking.
>
> However, if you'd like to write rebuttals to any of the analyses on my blog
> I will post them under the label a theist rebuttal.
>
> I won't do that for most theists, or even most atheists, however your
> articles would be worth posting because while I disagree with your POV most
> of the time, it's clear that you put a lot of thought into them and they do
> represent what I would consider as rational an approach as possible under
> the circumstances.
>
> So, my invitation is open to you.
my reply to Dev's interpretation of my views I hope that that will go
up.
I will give you an alias then if you will do so.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Aug 16, 2008, 2:10:02 PM8/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Again, that's not really my problem. People are allowed to do that.
Comments are open in the blog so they can always comment if they want to.
The fact that the debates are attached also allows people to see the opposing opinions.
In addition, you comment below about wanting to protect names, but
since real names might be used in the post that wouldn't be the
case ... for the people Dev is attacking.
If real names are used I edit them out. I only leave the names in if they are aliases.
So when I post Dev's comments your name will not appear. If you give me an alias I'll put it in or just indicate that the name has been removed.
I appreciate the kind sentiments, and when I get the chance to present
>
> However, if you'd like to write rebuttals to any of the analyses on my blog
> I will post them under the label a theist rebuttal.
>
> I won't do that for most theists, or even most atheists, however your
> articles would be worth posting because while I disagree with your POV most
> of the time, it's clear that you put a lot of thought into them and they do
> represent what I would consider as rational an approach as possible under
> the circumstances.
>
> So, my invitation is open to you.
my reply to Dev's interpretation of my views I hope that that will go
up.
It will.
It will be easier for me if cc the reply directly to my email though so that I'm sure I'm posting the right one.
I will give you an alias then if you will do so.
Thanks.
Allan C Cybulskie
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 16, 2008, 4:57:35 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Since it doesn't seem that Dev actually captured what my beliefs are
-- and, in fact, seemed to get them completely wrong -- this is my
attempt to dispell the misinterpretations of my views.
I will be snipping heavily to focus mainly on the misinterpretations,
and less on what actual arguments there are, but I don't promise to
limit myself to that either.
out there as, I can only presume, an example of my and therefore -- in
Dev's opinion, anyway -- theism's stupidity. Even if my view, in
context, was insane, stupid, ignorant, or whatever derogatory word Dev
is favouring this week it wouldn't apply to theism as a whole, of
course, so I will simply defend myself and not theism in general.
Ah, on that note, before I get into it I must point out this one quote
that sums up my view towards who I "side" with in this debate, and
what side I'm in, which will clarify why I don't pretend to defend any
other theists:
"Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on MY side",
Treebeard in "The Lord of the Rings".
Anyway, returning to the above quote after that side-bar. My comment
here was aimed at the idea that if someone had a personal experience
-- by which I really meant sense or phenomenal experience -- that
indicated the existence of something, that it should not and is not
generally considered a "delusion". In general, it is considered a
"hallucination" instead. Appeals to the dictionary supported both
positions technically; while the definition did not generally include
hallucinations, hallucination was considered to be a synonym for
delusion. However, I stand by the claim that hallucinations and
delusions are not the same thing. Take, for example, the case where
someone gets completely drunk and sees the now legendary "pink
elephants". Imagine as well that they are well-aware that they are
drunk and that those pink elephants aren't real. Are they
delusional? It seems unlikely; they seem to have a pretty good idea
of what reality is actually like. However, they are still
hallucinating, aren't they? If someone acknowledges that they are
hallucinating, is that delusional in the sense that Dev would like it
to be?
Let's take an example closer to religion. Imagine that someone who is
an atheist suddenly starts seeing images of Jesus everywhere he goes.
He goes to the hospital and says, "Everywhere I go, I see Jesus. He's
even over there now. I'm very well-aware that he isn't really there
and that I'm hallucinating, but I still keep seeing him. Can you help
me?" Is he delusional in any way? Well, it seems not; he doesn't
believe that his experience is indicating that religion is right -- he
remains an atheist -- and instead believes that his experience is not
real. But he is still hallucinating.
And it is clear that the treatments in both cases would be different.
If he walked in and said, "My socks are trying to eat my feet", the
first question asked would be "Why do you think that?" If his reply
was "Because socks eat feet as revenge for being lost in the dryer",
the doctors would immediately know that he was delusional, and would
start therapy designed to eliminate the belief that socks are in any
way animate. Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy would have a decent chance
at curing this, as well as other methods aimed at eliminating false
beliefs. On the other hand, if he said "Because I can see them moving
with little teeth on the inside, hear the smacking and crunching, and
my feet hurt", the doctors would know that he was having
hallucinations, and would move to determine what was the problem. CBT
would likely NOT be successful, and it would be far more likely to be
caused by a drug, chemical imbalance, or tumour.
And this is why the difference is important, even if one might be able
to argue technically that they are the same: how we treat and evaluate
the two are different. In the case of strict delusion, the beliefs
are at fault and must be broken; in the latter, the experience is at
fault, and must be correct. In addition, it is not necessarily an
irrational belief being held if it must follow from the experience and
the subject has no reason to believe that they are hallucinating; a
delusion is an irrational belief by definition since it must include
the fact that the subject has themselves enough evidence that they
should know that their belief is false, if they would only acknowledge
it.
Oh, and that's an important point to raise here as well: a belief can
only be considered delusional if the person who believes it should,
themselves, have enough evidence to consider it false (in accordance
with their other beliefs, etc, etc). This is because one cannot judge
someone's beliefs on the basis of information that the person does not
have and be in any way just or objective. For example, if someone's
wife is cheating on him and is very careful not to leave any evidence,
and all of their friends know because she told them but none of them
will tell him, he is not delusional for believing that she is
faithful. However, if she leaves evidence around all the time and all
of his trusted friends tell him that she is indeed cheating on him,
then he'd be deluding himself if he still insists she isn't.
Moving on after that rather long introduction to the first thing that
Dev actually seems to comment on and not just quote:
> "See, if you simply assert that they are delusional because they
> believe that Martians are communicating with them telepathically and
> insist that they are simply on that basis, what happens if Martians
> REALLY ARE communicating with them telepathically?" – Allan C
> Cybulskie
>
> What Allan misses here is the whole process by which mental illnesses
> are diagnosed. If someone were to think they were constantly seeing
> unicorns, the process by which diagnosis would occur would not involve
> the professionals going out and looking for unicorns because that
> would not be pragmatic.
Now, the basis of this quote was my comment that you cannot judge
someone delusional simply on the basis of the content of the belief,
but that you had to consider why -- ie what evidence -- they had for
that belief. Dev insisted otherwise. Note that his comment here is
taking a rather odd logical extension of that claim by implying that
the professionals would have to go out themselves and prove that
unicorns didn't exist before concluding the person insane. This is
not what I claimed at all. On the contrary, my claim is more akin to
the example that if the person said "I belief that unicorns exist",
the doctors will reply, "And why do you say that?". His reply could
be -- to keep consistent with Dev's comments -- "I see them all the
time." "Really?" the doctors would reply. "Yeah, " he says, "There's
one right outside the door. I rode it here and tied it up out
there." Assuming that that would be accessible by something the size
of a horse, wouldn't it be proper for the doctor to at least take a
look, just in case? And when discovering no unicorn there, and
nothing to indicate that it was, THEN concluding that the person was
delusional? The doctors might not, but it would hardly seem to be
ideal behaviour.
Let's return to the original quote to highlight why it wouldn't be
ideal. Take our poor soul who is saying that Martians are
communicating with him telepathically. He runs to a police officer
and says this, in a panic. The police officer takes him to the
doctors who ask -- just to humour him -- why he thinks that. He
states that he has ironclad proof at home. But since they follow
Dev's notion that the content of a belief is sufficient to consider it
a delusion, they commit him and never check. Two days later, his
family finds out where he is and brings the ironclad proof that
Martians REALLY ARE communicating with him telepathically. And it's
airtight; it is really, absolutely true. Can you imagine that the
doctors would NOT be sued and considered to be negligent in their
duties? And rightly so; while they may have been justified in locking
him up "just in case" on the basis of the content of his belief, there
was a responsiblity to at least TRY to ascertain that his claim wasn't
correct.
Not that the psychiatric field is all that great at it; I'm certain
we've all heard the story about the doctors who committed themselves
to an asylum, acted normally, and yet found their quite normal and
reasonable behaviours interpreted as signs of insanity because of the
predisposition of the doctors. This only highlights why objective
psychology and psychiatry will not simply judge on the content of the
belief, but on the reasons given with reasonable attempts to verify,
to avoid letting predispositions determine the judgement instead of
the facts.
> Allan is one of those theists that tries to be
> on rational ground like the atheists, because he isn't as content with
> his beliefs as omprem or Stonethatbleeds is.
Actually, I'd say I'm MORE content with my beliefs than they are, and
that my experience on AvC and with the words of the Four Horsemen has
only made me even more content. This is because a) I accept and have
accepted for a long time now that it is just a belief, and that I will
not have any hope of knowing the truth until I die and b) that I've
noticed that the atheist arguments do not have sufficient funds to
cash the check they write about atheism being the only rational
position on the issue.
To clarify that, I believe that based on the evidence we have on the
proposition, belief, belief in lack, and lack of belief are all
rational positions to take -- as long as one accepts that the
confidence on any belief formed is quite low, and certainly not
knowledge. I admit that there are a fair number of theists who think
they know God exists, and I would just say to them "You're wrong".
> “Dev wrote:
> > Every incidence of religious intolerance involves religion. Proven fact.
>
> Nice try. Now, try providing a reference for your 'proven fact'. I'm
> not interested in your opinion.” – OldMan
>
> “Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
> answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.” –
> Allan C Cybulskie
First, let me get into the context of THIS quote as well. I was
challenging atheists to "belly up to the bar" and declare themselves
as weak or strong atheists, and indicate whether or not they believed
that God did not exist or merely had a lack of belief in God. This
was Dev's answer:
"I have a lack of belief in Spongebob Squarepants. I have a lack of
belief that he lives in a pineapple under the sea. Can I disprove
Spongebob? No. If I were shown _evidence_ that Spongebob Squarepants
lived in a pineapple under the sea would I rethink my position? Of
course. In spite of that, I might say "Spongebob isn't real" but
that's largely because despite a lack of evidence for Spongebob being
real there is plenty of evidence that somebody made Him up. Now, I
know, these ridiculous analogies of God to other fictional characters
are getting old. I'm sick of them, too. But until you guys get the
point, they are evidently necessary because they are a great tool to
explain where we're coming from concerning your God.
God is fictional based on the assumption that if it cannot be
differentiated from other things commonly referred to as "fictional"
it is only logical to assume it is the same. I have a feeling you
can't disprove most fictional characters. But fictional they remain.
If you have to disprove something for it to be "fictional" you are
basically redefining how the word is actually used (and I'm not
interested in dictionary definitions since we all use the word
"fictional"--usage defines usage--dictionaries are only useful for
recording how words are used). "
My reply was:
"You seem to be dodging the question. Let me make it clearer:
If someone asked "Spongebob Squarepants exists. Do you consider this
proposition true, or false?" what would you answer?
If someone asked "God exists. Do you consider this proposition true,
or false?" what would you answer?
Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.
And
if one has a believe or even KNOWLEDGE it does not mean that one
cannot also say that if more evidence came in that they'd have to re-
evaluate that position. Heck, it's the basis of the scientific
method, or at least one of the reasons it is claimed to be so
objective and useful."
Now, it should be clear to anyone reading this that, yes, Dev dodged
the question. I was, in fact, actually being excessively FAIR to Dev,
since I could have simply assumed that claiming that God or Spongebob
Squarepants was fictional meant what it means to most people, which is
that he believed that God and Spongebob did not exist. Which would,
by definition, make him a strong atheist, and thus no longer to use
the "I merely have a lack of belief so I don't have any burden of
proof" since he would ACTUALLY have a belief in lack, which DOES
accrue a burden of proof. So, in response to my being exceedingly
fair to him, Dev takes the quote out of context, ignores the original
question, ignores his attempt to DODGE that question, and then
immediately after this quote accuses me -- and implies that this quote
shows it -- that I am attempting to claim that "If you can't prove it
false, it is rational believe" when this quote, in context, certainly
implies no such thing. Well, perhaps he didn't really mean to imply
that; his quotes have had a habit of not applying to his sections
anyway. So perhaps I'll grant him that one.
At any rate, the quote is perfectly correct; unless I know that to Dev
"fictional means non-existent", he didn't answer the question, and any
attempts to show God as "fictional" in no way addressed the original
context.
>
> I tried to explain to Allan that if the "if you can't prove it false,
> it's rational to believe" madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
> the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
> commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
> accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something like
> that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
> "belief". The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
> greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
> about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
> "amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
> argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
Dev has kindly provided a context for these comments in another post,
so I will reproduce it here in the interests of fairness and, of
course, in defense. He included the comments above, split to
reference his evidence, so I will include them as well.
***** Start of Dev's quote here *****
Original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ac2fbae033...
"It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief."
Original post:
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/acf930fbb3...
"And you don't get to defend it on the basis of 'it's true whereas
theism is false', because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done."
**** End of Dev's quote ****
Let me begin with the first reproduced quote. And since Dev was so
kind as to include the message link, let me restore the context first:
"> Theists:
> Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> your God?
Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the
current
standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
utterly irrelevant.
It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief. The O.J. Simpson
case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems
of
the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise? "
Dev was asking -- in accordance with previous arguments that he had
made -- that in some way if I have a certain set of standards for
accepting beliefs -- including God beliefs -- that those standards
should also apply to the legal standards, and so we should all accept
that we could be tried and convicted of a crime based on the same
standards. My reply, of course, was that no one in the world --
except possibly Dev -- thinks that way; even civil cases do not
require the same standards of evidence as criminal cases, and we
consider those judgements far more reliable than general mere
beliefs. So his question, as I said, is irrelevant ... and my reply
is certainly no indication that I think that if you can't prove it
false it is rational to believe, since we'd have to look at what the
standards actually say about beliefs.
As for my ACTUAL position on that statement, I hold that if I know
that something is false, it is absolutely irrational for me to believe
that it is true. Something proven false cannot be held to be true
rationally, so any such proof immediately eliminates the belief proven
false. Beyond that, we need to get deeper into the standards of
belief, and that starts to get subjective since what the people
already believe must play a role in determining whether or not to
believe. So it MAY be rational, or may be irrational, based on what
the standards for belief are in general and for the individual. I
will not even start to get into those there.
So, onto the second part. Let me reproduce the full context yet again
(it's so convenient that Dev's attempts to look fair provide the
message link, allowing me easy access to the context that shows him
wrong):
"> Likewise, pedophilia is simply the desire to have sex with
children
> and racism is simply the belief that certain races are superior or
> inferior (Walt tries to redefine these terms, but as watts points out,
> even with his stupid redefinitions the point stands)--neither of these
> mentalities are more "inherently" harmful than theism, they are simply
> harmful, they do more harm than good, and anyone who perpetuates them
> is partially responsible for their consequences. To apply different
> standards to theism is to employ a double-standard, and the original
> post of this thread is just one of a billion examples of what this
> double-standard leads to.
So, since eugenics can indeed follow directly from the belief in
evolution, should we consider evolution a dangerous belief as well?
And you don't get to defend it on the basis of "it's true whereas
theism is false", because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done. "
My "that" here, in context, is clearly the belief in evolution. My
charge was that, in order to be consistent, since it seems that
eugenics can indeed follow from the belief in evolution, the belief in
evolution would be just as much a dangerous belief as theism is (I
hope I do not need to relate the horrors that eugenics can lead to).
I then forstalled an argument by stating that Dev could NOT claim
"Well, evolution is true, and theism is false, so that's why we don't
need to hold evolution responsible for what evil is done by eugenics"
because, as I said, that would mean that he'd have to show that the
premises -- 1) Evolution is true, 2) Theism is false -- were true.
That would mean proving theism false. And I then noted -- quite
correctly -- that no weak atheist can claim that to be the case.
Dev could have tried to show that eugenics does not follow from
evolution. Others did, but it is quite easy to get to eugenics from
evolution (I really hope to have the time to get back and argue for
that soon) as anyone can see. One can argue that evolution does not
lead to eugenics by necessity; one can believe in evolution but not
eugenics. This is quite fair, but other arguments from other people
-- including Dev, of course -- argue that even though theism does not
necessarily lead to killing in its name it is still responsible, so
they'd run up against that argument as well. But the attempt could
have been made.
That is not what Dev did. He didn't even try to argue that we don't
KNOW that theism is true, and therefore evolution gets immunity that
theism doesn't since it IS known to be true. This would run us into a
bit of a problem if anyone ever proved theism true, so it isn't a
particularly GOOD argument, but it could have worked.
Instead, you got what Dev gave.
So, my comment was never, there, about that the consequences were
higher so the standards were higher with respect to the legal system
at all. But I did argue about consequences around that point, but in
the opposite way. I argued that all beliefs have a confidence level
attached to them. That confidence level is used to determine what
actions it is justifiable to take with respect to that belief. To
kill someone, the highest amount of confidence is required before
doing so; you have to have knowledge, which represents the highest
possible confidence we can have in the truth of a proposition. I do
not claim to know that God exists. I claim that NO ONE knows that God
exists. So if we look at the toddler case that Dev references, my
reply would be that anyone who would kill someone on the basis of the
belief in God is just plain wrong. Either they think they know when
they clearly don't, or they think that killing someone requires less
than knowledge. They'd be wrong on both counts.
Let me bring the question down here so that we can all see what it
might relate to:
>Why, then, on the thread
> about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
> "amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
> argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
Well, the message he quoted didn't relate that I was using that
argument as a defense at all, so he's wrong there. I also state above
-- as I have elsewhere, enough so that I'm certain that Dev must have
seen it -- that those standards do NOT defend the actions. So where
is the inconsistency and insanity? Only in Dev's head, it appears.
The only defense of theism I have ever made in relation to these sorts
of incidents is, in fact, the claim that you cannot hold all theists
beliefs responsible for the logical contortions that some people put
them though, which is, consistently enough, my precise position on
evolution vis a vis eugenics. Seems fairly consistent to me ...
> Under theism, things that are insane by every rational standard gain
> credibility through confirmation. Theists will kill each other for
> competing irrational beliefs, but they are all together in a battle
> against rationality in general. Thus, in a population like this group
> where many of the posters are atheists, they will lend a vague degree
> of support to each other. The ambiguity of a God allows theists to be
> uniquely insane, yet the nature of theism provides a unique appearance
> of consensus that runs the whole gamut.
This is one comment that I don't want to pass by. It strongly implies
this: that theists will fight amongst themselves unless united by a
common enemy. Thus, theism does not exist as a unified entity, nor do
theists consider that the beliefs of other theists with slightly
different theistic beliefs buttresses them unless someone or something
external attacks all of them.
This means that anti-theism's current main impact is to unite theists,
if this is correct, and if the case study here really does show
something. Hardly a beneficial result; can you say "self-fulfilling
prophecy".
That being said, I don't think AvC is a good case study for that,
taken at least personally; at best, I don't go around tell other
theists off, but why should I? There are plenty of atheists around to
do that and I don't have time to discuss my own beliefs, let alone
engage other theists when half the board will do that as well.
Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
much space?
And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
so terribly?
-- and, in fact, seemed to get them completely wrong -- this is my
attempt to dispell the misinterpretations of my views.
I will be snipping heavily to focus mainly on the misinterpretations,
and less on what actual arguments there are, but I don't promise to
limit myself to that either.
> “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> Allan C Cybulskie
This quote isn't addressed anywhere in this post, but is just tossed
> Allan C Cybulskie
out there as, I can only presume, an example of my and therefore -- in
Dev's opinion, anyway -- theism's stupidity. Even if my view, in
context, was insane, stupid, ignorant, or whatever derogatory word Dev
is favouring this week it wouldn't apply to theism as a whole, of
course, so I will simply defend myself and not theism in general.
Ah, on that note, before I get into it I must point out this one quote
that sums up my view towards who I "side" with in this debate, and
what side I'm in, which will clarify why I don't pretend to defend any
other theists:
"Side? I am on nobody's side, because nobody is on MY side",
Treebeard in "The Lord of the Rings".
Anyway, returning to the above quote after that side-bar. My comment
here was aimed at the idea that if someone had a personal experience
-- by which I really meant sense or phenomenal experience -- that
indicated the existence of something, that it should not and is not
generally considered a "delusion". In general, it is considered a
"hallucination" instead. Appeals to the dictionary supported both
positions technically; while the definition did not generally include
hallucinations, hallucination was considered to be a synonym for
delusion. However, I stand by the claim that hallucinations and
delusions are not the same thing. Take, for example, the case where
someone gets completely drunk and sees the now legendary "pink
elephants". Imagine as well that they are well-aware that they are
drunk and that those pink elephants aren't real. Are they
delusional? It seems unlikely; they seem to have a pretty good idea
of what reality is actually like. However, they are still
hallucinating, aren't they? If someone acknowledges that they are
hallucinating, is that delusional in the sense that Dev would like it
to be?
Let's take an example closer to religion. Imagine that someone who is
an atheist suddenly starts seeing images of Jesus everywhere he goes.
He goes to the hospital and says, "Everywhere I go, I see Jesus. He's
even over there now. I'm very well-aware that he isn't really there
and that I'm hallucinating, but I still keep seeing him. Can you help
me?" Is he delusional in any way? Well, it seems not; he doesn't
believe that his experience is indicating that religion is right -- he
remains an atheist -- and instead believes that his experience is not
real. But he is still hallucinating.
And it is clear that the treatments in both cases would be different.
If he walked in and said, "My socks are trying to eat my feet", the
first question asked would be "Why do you think that?" If his reply
was "Because socks eat feet as revenge for being lost in the dryer",
the doctors would immediately know that he was delusional, and would
start therapy designed to eliminate the belief that socks are in any
way animate. Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy would have a decent chance
at curing this, as well as other methods aimed at eliminating false
beliefs. On the other hand, if he said "Because I can see them moving
with little teeth on the inside, hear the smacking and crunching, and
my feet hurt", the doctors would know that he was having
hallucinations, and would move to determine what was the problem. CBT
would likely NOT be successful, and it would be far more likely to be
caused by a drug, chemical imbalance, or tumour.
And this is why the difference is important, even if one might be able
to argue technically that they are the same: how we treat and evaluate
the two are different. In the case of strict delusion, the beliefs
are at fault and must be broken; in the latter, the experience is at
fault, and must be correct. In addition, it is not necessarily an
irrational belief being held if it must follow from the experience and
the subject has no reason to believe that they are hallucinating; a
delusion is an irrational belief by definition since it must include
the fact that the subject has themselves enough evidence that they
should know that their belief is false, if they would only acknowledge
it.
Oh, and that's an important point to raise here as well: a belief can
only be considered delusional if the person who believes it should,
themselves, have enough evidence to consider it false (in accordance
with their other beliefs, etc, etc). This is because one cannot judge
someone's beliefs on the basis of information that the person does not
have and be in any way just or objective. For example, if someone's
wife is cheating on him and is very careful not to leave any evidence,
and all of their friends know because she told them but none of them
will tell him, he is not delusional for believing that she is
faithful. However, if she leaves evidence around all the time and all
of his trusted friends tell him that she is indeed cheating on him,
then he'd be deluding himself if he still insists she isn't.
Moving on after that rather long introduction to the first thing that
Dev actually seems to comment on and not just quote:
> "See, if you simply assert that they are delusional because they
> believe that Martians are communicating with them telepathically and
> insist that they are simply on that basis, what happens if Martians
> REALLY ARE communicating with them telepathically?" – Allan C
> Cybulskie
>
> What Allan misses here is the whole process by which mental illnesses
> are diagnosed. If someone were to think they were constantly seeing
> unicorns, the process by which diagnosis would occur would not involve
> the professionals going out and looking for unicorns because that
> would not be pragmatic.
someone delusional simply on the basis of the content of the belief,
but that you had to consider why -- ie what evidence -- they had for
that belief. Dev insisted otherwise. Note that his comment here is
taking a rather odd logical extension of that claim by implying that
the professionals would have to go out themselves and prove that
unicorns didn't exist before concluding the person insane. This is
not what I claimed at all. On the contrary, my claim is more akin to
the example that if the person said "I belief that unicorns exist",
the doctors will reply, "And why do you say that?". His reply could
be -- to keep consistent with Dev's comments -- "I see them all the
time." "Really?" the doctors would reply. "Yeah, " he says, "There's
one right outside the door. I rode it here and tied it up out
there." Assuming that that would be accessible by something the size
of a horse, wouldn't it be proper for the doctor to at least take a
look, just in case? And when discovering no unicorn there, and
nothing to indicate that it was, THEN concluding that the person was
delusional? The doctors might not, but it would hardly seem to be
ideal behaviour.
Let's return to the original quote to highlight why it wouldn't be
ideal. Take our poor soul who is saying that Martians are
communicating with him telepathically. He runs to a police officer
and says this, in a panic. The police officer takes him to the
doctors who ask -- just to humour him -- why he thinks that. He
states that he has ironclad proof at home. But since they follow
Dev's notion that the content of a belief is sufficient to consider it
a delusion, they commit him and never check. Two days later, his
family finds out where he is and brings the ironclad proof that
Martians REALLY ARE communicating with him telepathically. And it's
airtight; it is really, absolutely true. Can you imagine that the
doctors would NOT be sued and considered to be negligent in their
duties? And rightly so; while they may have been justified in locking
him up "just in case" on the basis of the content of his belief, there
was a responsiblity to at least TRY to ascertain that his claim wasn't
correct.
Not that the psychiatric field is all that great at it; I'm certain
we've all heard the story about the doctors who committed themselves
to an asylum, acted normally, and yet found their quite normal and
reasonable behaviours interpreted as signs of insanity because of the
predisposition of the doctors. This only highlights why objective
psychology and psychiatry will not simply judge on the content of the
belief, but on the reasons given with reasonable attempts to verify,
to avoid letting predispositions determine the judgement instead of
the facts.
> Allan is one of those theists that tries to be
> on rational ground like the atheists, because he isn't as content with
> his beliefs as omprem or Stonethatbleeds is.
that my experience on AvC and with the words of the Four Horsemen has
only made me even more content. This is because a) I accept and have
accepted for a long time now that it is just a belief, and that I will
not have any hope of knowing the truth until I die and b) that I've
noticed that the atheist arguments do not have sufficient funds to
cash the check they write about atheism being the only rational
position on the issue.
To clarify that, I believe that based on the evidence we have on the
proposition, belief, belief in lack, and lack of belief are all
rational positions to take -- as long as one accepts that the
confidence on any belief formed is quite low, and certainly not
knowledge. I admit that there are a fair number of theists who think
they know God exists, and I would just say to them "You're wrong".
> “Dev wrote:
> > Every incidence of religious intolerance involves religion. Proven fact.
>
> Nice try. Now, try providing a reference for your 'proven fact'. I'm
> not interested in your opinion.” – OldMan
>
> “Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
> answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.” –
> Allan C Cybulskie
challenging atheists to "belly up to the bar" and declare themselves
as weak or strong atheists, and indicate whether or not they believed
that God did not exist or merely had a lack of belief in God. This
was Dev's answer:
"I have a lack of belief in Spongebob Squarepants. I have a lack of
belief that he lives in a pineapple under the sea. Can I disprove
Spongebob? No. If I were shown _evidence_ that Spongebob Squarepants
lived in a pineapple under the sea would I rethink my position? Of
course. In spite of that, I might say "Spongebob isn't real" but
that's largely because despite a lack of evidence for Spongebob being
real there is plenty of evidence that somebody made Him up. Now, I
know, these ridiculous analogies of God to other fictional characters
are getting old. I'm sick of them, too. But until you guys get the
point, they are evidently necessary because they are a great tool to
explain where we're coming from concerning your God.
God is fictional based on the assumption that if it cannot be
differentiated from other things commonly referred to as "fictional"
it is only logical to assume it is the same. I have a feeling you
can't disprove most fictional characters. But fictional they remain.
If you have to disprove something for it to be "fictional" you are
basically redefining how the word is actually used (and I'm not
interested in dictionary definitions since we all use the word
"fictional"--usage defines usage--dictionaries are only useful for
recording how words are used). "
My reply was:
"You seem to be dodging the question. Let me make it clearer:
If someone asked "Spongebob Squarepants exists. Do you consider this
proposition true, or false?" what would you answer?
If someone asked "God exists. Do you consider this proposition true,
or false?" what would you answer?
Your rant about WHY God should be considered fictional in no way
answers the question of whether or not you think that God exists.
if one has a believe or even KNOWLEDGE it does not mean that one
cannot also say that if more evidence came in that they'd have to re-
evaluate that position. Heck, it's the basis of the scientific
method, or at least one of the reasons it is claimed to be so
objective and useful."
Now, it should be clear to anyone reading this that, yes, Dev dodged
the question. I was, in fact, actually being excessively FAIR to Dev,
since I could have simply assumed that claiming that God or Spongebob
Squarepants was fictional meant what it means to most people, which is
that he believed that God and Spongebob did not exist. Which would,
by definition, make him a strong atheist, and thus no longer to use
the "I merely have a lack of belief so I don't have any burden of
proof" since he would ACTUALLY have a belief in lack, which DOES
accrue a burden of proof. So, in response to my being exceedingly
fair to him, Dev takes the quote out of context, ignores the original
question, ignores his attempt to DODGE that question, and then
immediately after this quote accuses me -- and implies that this quote
shows it -- that I am attempting to claim that "If you can't prove it
false, it is rational believe" when this quote, in context, certainly
implies no such thing. Well, perhaps he didn't really mean to imply
that; his quotes have had a habit of not applying to his sections
anyway. So perhaps I'll grant him that one.
At any rate, the quote is perfectly correct; unless I know that to Dev
"fictional means non-existent", he didn't answer the question, and any
attempts to show God as "fictional" in no way addressed the original
context.
>
> I tried to explain to Allan that if the "if you can't prove it false,
> it's rational to believe" madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
> the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
> commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
> accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something like
> that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
> "belief". The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
> greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
> about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
> "amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
> argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
so I will reproduce it here in the interests of fairness and, of
course, in defense. He included the comments above, split to
reference his evidence, so I will include them as well.
***** Start of Dev's quote here *****
Original post:
"I tried to explain to Allan that if the 'if you can't prove it
false,
it's rational to believe' madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something
like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
'belief'."
Message in question:
false,
it's rational to believe' madness he spews so proudly were allowed in
the legal system, he could easily be charged with a crime he didn't
commit--all that would be required would be an easily formulated
accusation that couldn't be disproved. His response was something
like
that the standards for conviction should be higher than those of
'belief'."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/ac2fbae033...
"It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
are HIGHER than that required for a mere belief."
Original post:
"The implication, I think, is that the consequences are
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
'amen'--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity."
Message in question:
greater, so the standards should be greater. Why, then, on the thread
about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
'amen'--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity."
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/msg/acf930fbb3...
"And you don't get to defend it on the basis of 'it's true whereas
theism is false', because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done."
Let me begin with the first reproduced quote. And since Dev was so
kind as to include the message link, let me restore the context first:
"> Theists:
> Would you accept that the amount of evidence required to convict you
> of a crime need only equal the amount of evidence you can produce for
> your God?
Well, the problem is that your question, in fact, violates the
current
standards of evidence required for criminal convictions, civil court
decisions, and beliefs in current Western society, so the question is
utterly irrelevant.
It is well known that in the U.S. and Canada, at least, that the
standards of evidence required for a criminal conviction are HIGHER
than those required to get a civil court decision on the matter which
case is a prime example of this: almost everyone believes that he
killed Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman, the civil court case held him
responsible for their deaths (that decision is what bankrupted him),
but the criminal trial did not convict him, and there were no grounds
for appeal sufficient to get that decision overturned.
So the question has to be turned back to you: why do you think that
the standards required for a mere belief in God can or should be
applied to criminal cases, when the entire legal and social systems
of
the U.S. and Canada -- at least -- insist otherwise? "
Dev was asking -- in accordance with previous arguments that he had
made -- that in some way if I have a certain set of standards for
accepting beliefs -- including God beliefs -- that those standards
should also apply to the legal standards, and so we should all accept
that we could be tried and convicted of a crime based on the same
standards. My reply, of course, was that no one in the world --
except possibly Dev -- thinks that way; even civil cases do not
require the same standards of evidence as criminal cases, and we
consider those judgements far more reliable than general mere
beliefs. So his question, as I said, is irrelevant ... and my reply
is certainly no indication that I think that if you can't prove it
false it is rational to believe, since we'd have to look at what the
standards actually say about beliefs.
As for my ACTUAL position on that statement, I hold that if I know
that something is false, it is absolutely irrational for me to believe
that it is true. Something proven false cannot be held to be true
rationally, so any such proof immediately eliminates the belief proven
false. Beyond that, we need to get deeper into the standards of
belief, and that starts to get subjective since what the people
already believe must play a role in determining whether or not to
believe. So it MAY be rational, or may be irrational, based on what
the standards for belief are in general and for the individual. I
will not even start to get into those there.
So, onto the second part. Let me reproduce the full context yet again
(it's so convenient that Dev's attempts to look fair provide the
message link, allowing me easy access to the context that shows him
wrong):
"> Likewise, pedophilia is simply the desire to have sex with
children
> and racism is simply the belief that certain races are superior or
> inferior (Walt tries to redefine these terms, but as watts points out,
> even with his stupid redefinitions the point stands)--neither of these
> mentalities are more "inherently" harmful than theism, they are simply
> harmful, they do more harm than good, and anyone who perpetuates them
> is partially responsible for their consequences. To apply different
> standards to theism is to employ a double-standard, and the original
> post of this thread is just one of a billion examples of what this
> double-standard leads to.
So, since eugenics can indeed follow directly from the belief in
evolution, should we consider evolution a dangerous belief as well?
And you don't get to defend it on the basis of "it's true whereas
theism is false", because then you'd have to prove that theism is
false, and no weak atheist can even claim that that's been done. "
charge was that, in order to be consistent, since it seems that
eugenics can indeed follow from the belief in evolution, the belief in
evolution would be just as much a dangerous belief as theism is (I
hope I do not need to relate the horrors that eugenics can lead to).
I then forstalled an argument by stating that Dev could NOT claim
"Well, evolution is true, and theism is false, so that's why we don't
need to hold evolution responsible for what evil is done by eugenics"
because, as I said, that would mean that he'd have to show that the
premises -- 1) Evolution is true, 2) Theism is false -- were true.
That would mean proving theism false. And I then noted -- quite
correctly -- that no weak atheist can claim that to be the case.
Dev could have tried to show that eugenics does not follow from
evolution. Others did, but it is quite easy to get to eugenics from
evolution (I really hope to have the time to get back and argue for
that soon) as anyone can see. One can argue that evolution does not
lead to eugenics by necessity; one can believe in evolution but not
eugenics. This is quite fair, but other arguments from other people
-- including Dev, of course -- argue that even though theism does not
necessarily lead to killing in its name it is still responsible, so
they'd run up against that argument as well. But the attempt could
have been made.
That is not what Dev did. He didn't even try to argue that we don't
KNOW that theism is true, and therefore evolution gets immunity that
theism doesn't since it IS known to be true. This would run us into a
bit of a problem if anyone ever proved theism true, so it isn't a
particularly GOOD argument, but it could have worked.
Instead, you got what Dev gave.
So, my comment was never, there, about that the consequences were
higher so the standards were higher with respect to the legal system
at all. But I did argue about consequences around that point, but in
the opposite way. I argued that all beliefs have a confidence level
attached to them. That confidence level is used to determine what
actions it is justifiable to take with respect to that belief. To
kill someone, the highest amount of confidence is required before
doing so; you have to have knowledge, which represents the highest
possible confidence we can have in the truth of a proposition. I do
not claim to know that God exists. I claim that NO ONE knows that God
exists. So if we look at the toddler case that Dev references, my
reply would be that anyone who would kill someone on the basis of the
belief in God is just plain wrong. Either they think they know when
they clearly don't, or they think that killing someone requires less
than knowledge. They'd be wrong on both counts.
Let me bring the question down here so that we can all see what it
might relate to:
>Why, then, on the thread
> about the toddler starved and stuffed in a suitcase for not saying
> "amen"--certainly a consequence--does he go on using this same
> argument as a defense for theism? Inconsistency, and insanity.
argument as a defense at all, so he's wrong there. I also state above
-- as I have elsewhere, enough so that I'm certain that Dev must have
seen it -- that those standards do NOT defend the actions. So where
is the inconsistency and insanity? Only in Dev's head, it appears.
The only defense of theism I have ever made in relation to these sorts
of incidents is, in fact, the claim that you cannot hold all theists
beliefs responsible for the logical contortions that some people put
them though, which is, consistently enough, my precise position on
evolution vis a vis eugenics. Seems fairly consistent to me ...
> Under theism, things that are insane by every rational standard gain
> credibility through confirmation. Theists will kill each other for
> competing irrational beliefs, but they are all together in a battle
> against rationality in general. Thus, in a population like this group
> where many of the posters are atheists, they will lend a vague degree
> of support to each other. The ambiguity of a God allows theists to be
> uniquely insane, yet the nature of theism provides a unique appearance
> of consensus that runs the whole gamut.
this: that theists will fight amongst themselves unless united by a
common enemy. Thus, theism does not exist as a unified entity, nor do
theists consider that the beliefs of other theists with slightly
different theistic beliefs buttresses them unless someone or something
external attacks all of them.
This means that anti-theism's current main impact is to unite theists,
if this is correct, and if the case study here really does show
something. Hardly a beneficial result; can you say "self-fulfilling
prophecy".
That being said, I don't think AvC is a good case study for that,
taken at least personally; at best, I don't go around tell other
theists off, but why should I? There are plenty of atheists around to
do that and I don't have time to discuss my own beliefs, let alone
engage other theists when half the board will do that as well.
Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
much space?
And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
so terribly?
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 16, 2008, 5:50:00 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
I just realized that I forgot to state a nickname. You can use
Vaarsuvius. Some people might get that.
I also forgot to CC you on it, for which I apologize. I hope this
doesn't make things too difficult for you.
I will be using Vaarsuvius here from now on.
Vaarsuvius. Some people might get that.
I also forgot to CC you on it, for which I apologize. I hope this
doesn't make things too difficult for you.
I will be using Vaarsuvius here from now on.
Trance Gemini
<trancegemini7@gmail.com>Aug 16, 2008, 6:11:46 PM8/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
Okay. Thanks Vaarsuvius ;-)
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 16, 2008, 6:25:12 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Okay, Allan, I started going through this to refute it point by point,
but I just wondered if, first of all, you could decide what your
position is before I refute it?
First of all, you defend this quote...
> > “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> > Allan C Cybulskie
...by implying that I'm getting "delusion" and "hallucination" mixed-
up. Yes, there's a difference--a hallucination is a visual or auditory
experience--but how this negates the idea that having a "fixed false
belief" is a personal experience is not made clear. Anyway, this is
beside the point--your whole argument here rests on not mixing up
visual and auditory hallucinations with delusions:
> My comment
> here was aimed at the idea that if someone had a personal experience
> -- by which I really meant sense or phenomenal experience -- that
> indicated the existence of something, that it should not and is not
> generally considered a "delusion". In general, it is considered a
> "hallucination" instead.
And then, lo and behold, you write this later in the post:
> On the contrary, my claim is more akin to
> the example that if the person said "I belief that unicorns exist",
> the doctors will reply, "And why do you say that?". His reply could
> be -- to keep consistent with Dev's comments -- "I see them all the
> time." "Really?" the doctors would reply. "Yeah, " he says, "There's
> one right outside the door. I rode it here and tied it up out
> there." Assuming that that would be accessible by something the size
> of a horse, wouldn't it be proper for the doctor to at least take a
> look, just in case? And when discovering no unicorn there, and
> nothing to indicate that it was, THEN concluding that the person was
> delusional?
By your own differentiation (which was sound, it was just an attack of
a strawman, which is precisely what you accused me of doing) that
would be a hallucination, so no.
So, basically, you're arguing that it's important that hallucinations
and delusions are understood to be two different things so you can
prove a delusion is a delusion because it's a hallucination.
So did you hallucinate and think you were writing something else, or
did you just delude yourself into thinking you were making sense?
Typical psychotic gibberish from Cybulskie--honestly, Allan, if I did
misunderstand any of your positions, it's still your fault for being a
self-contradictory lunatic. I don't see the point of reading further
into this post since you can't get your shit together.
Psycho.
On Aug 16, 2:57 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
but I just wondered if, first of all, you could decide what your
position is before I refute it?
First of all, you defend this quote...
> > “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> > Allan C Cybulskie
up. Yes, there's a difference--a hallucination is a visual or auditory
experience--but how this negates the idea that having a "fixed false
belief" is a personal experience is not made clear. Anyway, this is
beside the point--your whole argument here rests on not mixing up
visual and auditory hallucinations with delusions:
> My comment
> here was aimed at the idea that if someone had a personal experience
> -- by which I really meant sense or phenomenal experience -- that
> indicated the existence of something, that it should not and is not
> generally considered a "delusion". In general, it is considered a
> "hallucination" instead.
> On the contrary, my claim is more akin to
> the example that if the person said "I belief that unicorns exist",
> the doctors will reply, "And why do you say that?". His reply could
> be -- to keep consistent with Dev's comments -- "I see them all the
> time." "Really?" the doctors would reply. "Yeah, " he says, "There's
> one right outside the door. I rode it here and tied it up out
> there." Assuming that that would be accessible by something the size
> of a horse, wouldn't it be proper for the doctor to at least take a
> look, just in case? And when discovering no unicorn there, and
> nothing to indicate that it was, THEN concluding that the person was
> delusional?
a strawman, which is precisely what you accused me of doing) that
would be a hallucination, so no.
So, basically, you're arguing that it's important that hallucinations
and delusions are understood to be two different things so you can
prove a delusion is a delusion because it's a hallucination.
So did you hallucinate and think you were writing something else, or
did you just delude yourself into thinking you were making sense?
Typical psychotic gibberish from Cybulskie--honestly, Allan, if I did
misunderstand any of your positions, it's still your fault for being a
self-contradictory lunatic. I don't see the point of reading further
into this post since you can't get your shit together.
Psycho.
On Aug 16, 2:57 pm, Allan C Cybulskie <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca>
wrote:
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 16, 2008, 8:45:46 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 16, 6:25 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Okay, Allan, I started going through this to refute it point by point,
> but I just wondered if, first of all, you could decide what your
> position is before I refute it?
>
> First of all, you defend this quote...
>
> > > “Generally, delusional does not apply to personal experiences.” –
> > > Allan C Cybulskie
>
> ...by implying that I'm getting "delusion" and "hallucination" mixed-
> up. Yes, there's a difference--a hallucination is a visual or auditory
> experience--but how this negates the idea that having a "fixed false
> belief" is a personal experience is not made clear.
experience, as in a visual or auditory experience, as you say above
and I pointed out right below?
> Anyway, this is
> beside the point--your whole argument here rests on not mixing up
> visual and auditory hallucinations with delusions:
>
> > My comment
> > here was aimed at the idea that if someone had a personal experience
> > -- by which I really meant sense or phenomenal experience -- that
> > indicated the existence of something, that it should not and is not
> > generally considered a "delusion". In general, it is considered a
> > "hallucination" instead.
>
> And then, lo and behold, you write this later in the post:
>
> > On the contrary, my claim is more akin to
> > the example that if the person said "I belief that unicorns exist",
> > the doctors will reply, "And why do you say that?". His reply could
> > be -- to keep consistent with Dev's comments -- "I see them all the
> > time." "Really?" the doctors would reply. "Yeah, " he says, "There's
> > one right outside the door. I rode it here and tied it up out
> > there." Assuming that that would be accessible by something the size
> > of a horse, wouldn't it be proper for the doctor to at least take a
> > look, just in case? And when discovering no unicorn there, and
> > nothing to indicate that it was, THEN concluding that the person was
> > delusional?
>
> By your own differentiation (which was sound, it was just an attack of
> a strawman, which is precisely what you accused me of doing) that
> would be a hallucination, so no.
think that someone can ride a non-existent unicorn to the hospital?
The seeing part would be a hallucination, but having ridden the
unicorn there would not be.
>
> So, basically, you're arguing that it's important that hallucinations
> and delusions are understood to be two different things so you can
> prove a delusion is a delusion because it's a hallucination.
>
> So did you hallucinate and think you were writing something else, or
> did you just delude yourself into thinking you were making sense?
> Typical psychotic gibberish from Cybulskie--honestly, Allan, if I did
> misunderstand any of your positions, it's still your fault for being a
> self-contradictory lunatic. I don't see the point of reading further
> into this post since you can't get your shit together.
>
> Psycho.
hallucination and delusion (which I didn't, since it would be both),
that would not make my entire post gibberish, psychotic (that word
does not mean what you think it means) or insane. Ultimately, it's
your reading comprehension and unique ability to get horribly confused
and offended at minor discrepancies that's at fault, not me.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 16, 2008, 9:10:24 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
I don't think I can add anything to your idiotic justification.
Trance, we've got my original post, Allan's "rebuttal", my response
and now this. Let him have the last word--it's hilarious.
Trance, we've got my original post, Allan's "rebuttal", my response
and now this. Let him have the last word--it's hilarious.
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 16, 2008, 9:12:08 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
I especially like this part:
"> By your own differentiation (which was sound, it was just an attack
of
> a strawman, which is precisely what you accused me of doing) that
> would be a hallucination, so no.
Um, actually, no, it wouldn't (or wouldn't just be) ... or do you
think that someone can ride a non-existent unicorn to the hospital?
The seeing part would be a hallucination, but having ridden the
unicorn there would not be."
LOL.
"> By your own differentiation (which was sound, it was just an attack
of
> a strawman, which is precisely what you accused me of doing) that
> would be a hallucination, so no.
Um, actually, no, it wouldn't (or wouldn't just be) ... or do you
think that someone can ride a non-existent unicorn to the hospital?
The seeing part would be a hallucination, but having ridden the
unicorn there would not be."
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 16, 2008, 9:33:49 PM8/16/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 16, 9:10 pm, Dev <thedevil...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> I don't think I can add anything to your idiotic justification.
> Trance, we've got my original post, Allan's "rebuttal", my response
> and now this. Let him have the last word--it's hilarious.
but because it's pointless. My original reply stands on its own;
Dev's rebuttal does more damage to his own case than to anything I
said.
>
> read more »
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Aug 16, 2008, 11:59:06 PM8/16/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allan C Cybulskie
<allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
> no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
> this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
> Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
> time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
> not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
> much space?
>
> And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
> so terribly?
<allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
> no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
> this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
> Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
> time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
> not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
> much space?
>
> And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
> so terribly?
Don't worry, Allan, folks see right through Dev's willful mis
characterizations. You do well to set the record straight as you've
done, but in fact, you've hit upon a main atheistic tactic:
* keep misrepresenting OP positions so that instead of addressing the
faults with atheism or his position, OP spends all their time
clarifying their own position
I've had several consolations from taking the time to clarify my
positions, though, that I hope comfort you as well:
* the public record on the group clearly indicates that your positions
are willfully mis represented
* the time taken to clarify your position indicates your commitment to
articulate it clearly
Your posts are excellent, and worth reading; the forum is much better
because of your participation.
Regards,
Brock
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 12:10:10 AM8/17/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
The other thing, Allan, I wished to note in my other message but
forgot to, was that such antics as Dev pulls on the forum are
moderately popular, for example, the "This Modern World" comic cited
is a comic built upon the premise of "put words in your OP mouth, then
respond invectively and with ad hominem to that". So I think you do
well to answer Dev as you've done. In fact, take it from him and
other atheists as a sign that your positions are good enough that such
name calling and invective is all they have to respond with.
Regards,
Brock
Dev
<thedeviliam@fastmail.fm>Aug 17, 2008, 1:23:57 AM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
http://groups.google.com/group/Atheism-vs-Christianity/web/brock%20organ%20story.JPG
On Aug 16, 10:10 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brock- Hide quoted text -
On Aug 16, 10:10 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 17, 2008, 10:50:02 AM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 16, 11:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allan C Cybulskie
>
> <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> > Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
> > no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
> > this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
> > Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
> > time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
> > not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
> > much space?
>
> > And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
> > so terribly?
>
> Don't worry, Allan, folks see right through Dev's willful mis
> characterizations.
I'm not certain that they do; we've all seen in all forums from all
> > Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
> > no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
> > this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
> > Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
> > time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
> > not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
> > much space?
>
> > And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
> > so terribly?
>
> Don't worry, Allan, folks see right through Dev's willful mis
> characterizations.
sides of all debates that the misrepresentations tend to be what's
taken from the debates as oppose to the good points.
> You do well to set the record straight as you've
> done, but in fact, you've hit upon a main atheistic tactic:
seems to me to be what people these days think of when they think of
"debating", when it's nothing of the sort.
>
> * keep misrepresenting OP positions so that instead of addressing the
> faults with atheism or his position, OP spends all their time
> clarifying their own position
>
> I've had several consolations from taking the time to clarify my
> positions, though, that I hope comfort you as well:
>
> * the public record on the group clearly indicates that your positions
> are willfully mis represented
> * the time taken to clarify your position indicates your commitment to
> articulate it clearly
>
> Your posts are excellent, and worth reading; the forum is much better
> because of your participation.
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 17, 2008, 10:52:14 AM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 17, 12:10 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
that too many people are more concerned about winning than about
learning ...
> So I think you do
> well to answer Dev as you've done. In fact, take it from him and
> other atheists as a sign that your positions are good enough that such
> name calling and invective is all they have to respond with.
exceptionally moderate on most issues, and note that there are rather
nasty challenges to most of my actual stances ... so much so that I
often do or at least want to argue against my own points since I can
do it better than many of the replies. And that's really sad.
student13
<pairamblr@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 11:43:50 AM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
AC
In this case, instead of "putting words in your mouth"
Brock my friend is putting these words into your mind...
and he attributes them to others.
Questioning is to make a participant to look at. If one is clear,
then
is there a problem to reply with clarity? If one is not clear, then
one will have
a chance to think, rethink and see where and what causes the
difference in thinking
or understanding. But that needs * thinking *. Otherwise, there is
no alternative, but to be a Brock or my other friend, Om.
Eitherway, to put words into one's mouth, that person should be
ignorant,
meaning, one who has no ability to think. And if one does not have
the ability
to think, can such a person complain?
cheers
st13
On Aug 17, 9:10 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
In this case, instead of "putting words in your mouth"
Brock my friend is putting these words into your mind...
and he attributes them to others.
Questioning is to make a participant to look at. If one is clear,
then
is there a problem to reply with clarity? If one is not clear, then
one will have
a chance to think, rethink and see where and what causes the
difference in thinking
or understanding. But that needs * thinking *. Otherwise, there is
no alternative, but to be a Brock or my other friend, Om.
Eitherway, to put words into one's mouth, that person should be
ignorant,
meaning, one who has no ability to think. And if one does not have
the ability
to think, can such a person complain?
cheers
st13
On Aug 17, 9:10 am, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 11:43:55 AM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 17, 12:50 am, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> I just realized that I forgot to state a nickname. You can use
> Vaarsuvius. Some people might get that.
V hasn't been himself (herself) lately. :-)
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 17, 2008, 12:04:16 PM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
On Aug 17, 11:43 am, random <random.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 12:50 am, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> > I just realized that I forgot to state a nickname. You can use
> > Vaarsuvius. Some people might get that.
>
> Are you sure it's a smart choice?
> V hasn't been himself (herself) lately. :-)
(That being said, considering how busy my work has been lately, I'm
probably starting to resemble V. In more ways than one [grin]).
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 12:11:16 PM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Vaarsuvius
<allan_c_cybulskie@yahoo.ca>Aug 17, 2008, 12:13:59 PM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
Undead!") but since he was in Lawful Good afterlife he'd look exactly
how he wanted to look, right?
Belkar ... yeah. Absolutely.
random
<random.shba@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 12:24:23 PM8/17/08
to Atheism vs Christianity
reasonable (in terms of internal logic) compared to most serious
beliefs. Also much more appealing.
>
> Belkar ... yeah. Absolutely.
Brock Organ
<brockorgan@gmail.com>Aug 17, 2008, 5:00:35 PM8/17/08
to Atheism-vs-Christianity@googlegroups.com
On Sun, Aug 17, 2008 at 10:50 AM, Vaarsuvius <allan_c_...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 11:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allan C Cybulskie
>>
>> <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
>> > no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
>> > this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
>> > Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
>> > time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
>> > not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
>> > much space?
>>
>> > And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
>> > so terribly?
>>
>> Don't worry, Allan, folks see right through Dev's willful mis
>> characterizations.
>
> I'm not certain that they do; we've all seen in all forums from all
> sides of all debates that the misrepresentations tend to be what's
> taken from the debates as oppose to the good points.
> On Aug 16, 11:59 pm, "Brock Organ" <brockor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Allan C Cybulskie
>>
>> <allan_c_cybuls...@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> > Now, one final point. This is a long post. A VERY long post. I have
>> > no pretensions that I've said anything devastating here; almost all of
>> > this was merely clarifying my own points against misrepresentations by
>> > Dev. Is it any wonder that I, at least personally, have very little
>> > time to make actual posts, when simply defending what I said -- and
>> > not as true or false, but literally just what I said -- takes up so
>> > much space?
>>
>> > And is it worth the effort, knowing that my words will be misconstrued
>> > so terribly?
>>
>> Don't worry, Allan, folks see right through Dev's willful mis
>> characterizations.
>
> I'm not certain that they do; we've all seen in all forums from all
> sides of all debates that the misrepresentations tend to be what's
> taken from the debates as oppose to the good points.
For my thinking, such practices reflect a willful myopia from their
side; of course, your positions, clearly stated and thoughtfully
followed up, will reflect well on you as a debater and on your
position.
>> You do well to set the record straight as you've
>> done, but in fact, you've hit upon a main atheistic tactic:
>
> I would be careful to associate it as an "atheistic" tactic; it simply
> seems to me to be what people these days think of when they think of
> "debating", when it's nothing of the sort.
Good point.
Regards,
Brock
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages