Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[Brian63]

That is a specific example to indicate a specific truth. It indicates that you will likely enjoy ketchup on the 101st try. It does not mean that even most people, much less all people, will enjoy ketchup.

Agreed.

However, you claimed I was committing the composition fallacy, which is something different.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy-of-Composition

"Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

An example given is: "Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound."

That was not what I was doing though. I never said anything about anything being "part of the whole." You have a very common misunderstanding of what the composition fallacy is. You seem to be equating it to extrapolation, which is not a fallacy. We can still observe patterns and trends of behavior and extrapolate from them what likely outcomes will manifest as well.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding the meaning of a general truth. Just because some religions have some members with maladjusted children does not point to a general truth that all in that religion, much less any other religion, will all have maladjusted children.

When did I ever say that "all" will have maladjusted children? Please provide the exact link, or retract that strawman. I predict, based on past behavior, you will do neither. Please prove me wrong. I would be thrilled.

 

[skepticalbip]

That is a specific example to indicate a specific truth. It indicates that you will likely enjoy ketchup on the 101st try. It does not mean that even most people, much less all people, will enjoy ketchup.

Agreed.

However, you claimed I was committing the composition fallacy, which is something different.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/88/Fallacy-of-Composition

"Inferring that something is true of the whole from the fact that it is true of some part of the whole."

An example given is: "Each brick in that building weighs less than a pound. Therefore, the building weighs less than a pound."

That was not what I was doing though. I never said anything about anything being "part of the whole." You have a very common misunderstanding of what the composition fallacy is. You seem to be equating it to extrapolation, which is not a fallacy. We can still observe patterns and trends of behavior and extrapolate from them what likely outcomes will manifest as well.

Maybe you are having trouble understanding the meaning of a general truth. Just because some religions have some members with maladjusted children does not point to a general truth that all in that religion, much less any other religion, will all have maladjusted children.

When did I ever say that "all" will have maladjusted children? Please provide the exact link, or retract that strawman. I predict, based on past behavior, you will do neither. Please prove me wrong. I would be thrilled.

True, you didn't say "all". But you did claim that religious upbringing creates maladjusted children. Of the universe of maladjusted children, you singled out a select group that were from religious families, ignoring the select group of maladjusted children that were from atheist families. True, there are such maladjusted children but that does not imply that religion creates maladjusted children any more than that atheism creates maladjusted children.

 

[Brian63]

True, you didn't say "all". But you did claim that religious upbringing creates maladjusted children. Of the universe of maladjusted children, you singled out a select group that were from religious families, ignoring the select group of maladjusted children that were from atheist families. True, there are such maladjusted children but that does not imply that religion creates maladjusted children any more than that atheism creates maladjusted children.

If the justification was limited to just sampling as you describe, that would not be a warranted conclusion, you are correct. In the examples I was referring to though (my own, and countless others I have seen and heard over the last 20 years), people described how their religious indoctrination impacted their psyche. It was not just a coincidence that people raised to believe in unquestioning obedience to an authoritative god also became afraid to question that god, it was directly a cause of it. They connected-the-dots to see how [cause A] would imply [effect B]. It is a scar of the event, not just an unusual coincidence.

If a child was verbally and physically abused at home and later in life was emotionally unstable and described their childhood in horror, even with specific events, would you think those were just coincidences? Since some adults are emotionally unstable even though they had healthy childhoods, and some children have unhealthy upbringings but still wind up okay.

Would you say that we cannot draw any probable connection between the 2 events?

 

[Brian63]

From earlier---

I found this very interesting article in Quartz:

https://qz.com/1301084/should-you-raise-your-kids-religious-heres-what-the-science-says/

It touches on some of my objections to your statement that it is more than likely a child will suffer harm when raised in a religious home.

Note that my position is not referring to the child exclusively, it is more that the religious indoctrination will harm the child themselves (even if they are blissfully unaware of it) and/or other people who are around that person and interacts with them. When a population of such individuals swells to more massive numbers, then their reach of influence spreads further as well.

Such as when a person is indoctrinated into very homophobic, misogynistic, racist, xenophobic, etc. environments it may not harm them in a way that they are aware of (they may interact with other people who exhibit similar homophobic, misogynistic, etc. traits and the socializing benefits them in the meanwhile). Those of us who hold different views would still be harmed, however. If those people went onto become parents themselves and raised their own children with similar mentalities, the children would be susceptible to a similar mixture of benefits and harms, all the while other people in the society suffer more. So still, the attitude of "I don't care what their beliefs are as long as they do not enforce it on me" is shortsighted, and does not account for the after-effects and side effects of religions, especially when religious beliefs are indoctrinated into children.

I do not advocate raising children to be atheist as well. I advocate raising children to think for themselves and form their own beliefs about whether or not any god exists and which religion is true (if any). Show them *how* to think and not tell them *what* to think.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Will you finally drop your pretense of just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation? It is pretty evident here that you have another agenda, to make personal derogatory statements as well.

Nope. I am still just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation. From now on I'm just going to ignore any further attacks from you. I've said everything that matters on this.

So what's your plan then?

I already answered that in a recent post. Here is that answer again:

I do not know. I never have claimed to know. It is not necessary for me to have an all-out detailed plan of what the most optimal solution is, in order to determine that other ideas that are advocated for have some flaws and that they should be revised to help improve them. When other atheists adopt the attitude of “As long as they do not impose their beliefs on me, then I do not care what their beliefs are” then they have taken a very misguided and flawed approach. This thread was intended to focus on that single attitude commonly espoused by atheists here and elsewhere. This thread was not intended to be an exhaustive analysis on how to stamp out all religion entirely.

I think you need, IMHO, at least one plan. Otherwise you're not saying anything. Or it's on the level of "somebody should do something about this".

Since atheism is a sport like not playing tennis is a sport, it's not really a meaningful activity. Not to mention that an identity built up around being against stuff is a fucking drag. Both to yourself and anybody around you. Unless you have something to replace what the theist is for with a secular activity, you might as well save your breath... IMHO.

I do not have a plan on how to solve many of the world’s problems. They are something that I just do not know. However, when I see other suggestions put forward that I can clearly see have some flaws in them, I will point them out. I would love to have the end-all, be-all solution on how to eradicate religion, but unfortunately do not. Those of us who are in the same position can still off constructive criticism of other ideas though.

Here is another way you may be able to understand it:

Suppose a group of people wants to solve the problem of human poverty and one of them offers up 20 possible fixes. Others in the group can point to #17 and think that is not an effective method, and they may be entirely right, even if they do not have anything to offer up in its place. Still, the discourse was productive and informative for those involved.

I think you've finally understood what my critique is about. You've not offered up any possible fix. So there's not much to be for or even critique.

If your plan to combat religion is only focused on their beliefs, then it's accurate to think that you are only focused on their beliefs.

Who---besides you---said my plan “is only focused on their beliefs.” That is exactly the opposite of what I am saying. My position---once again---is that it would be a multi-faceted approach. No, I do not have all the exact and exhaustive details laid out, because I do not know them. However, when other atheists espouse the view of “I do not care as long as they do not impose it on me” I can see that as being a problematic approach, that mentality should not be the norm among us.

So please name some facets of that multi-faceted approach. I'm all ears.

Ok, cool. So I guess it's ok to, in this thread, talk about other aspects of religion that has an influence on their beliefs, other than just the beliefs. Great. I'll keep doing that then.

If you have the great antidote to religious thinking, please do not keep it hidden in just this thread. Start a thread of your own and explain how and why you think your approach will get the job done more effectively than any other alternatives. Again, the focus of this thread has been on the atheists who treat religion as a taboo topic and that we should not care about what bad beliefs other people have, unless they try to force it onto us. That is what I would like this particular thread to be focused on. That does not mean I think that approach is by itself enough to get the job done of eliminating religious harm, it just means that I want this particular discussion to focus on that particular aspect. Do you understand the difference?

WTF? Unless we discuss ways to combat religious thinking, then WTF is the point of this thread? Just general whining about how somebody else should do more? I don't find that conversation meaningful. Not at all. A complete waste of time.

 

[Brian63]

Nope. I am still just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation. From now on I'm just going to ignore any further attacks from you. I've said everything that matters on this.

Yes, you have. You have made insults, then when called out on them piled on with further insults (accusing me of being defensive), now you are ironically being defensive yourself by saying I am “attacking” you. Will you criticize yourself for being so defensive? If you insult someone, they are being defensive if they insult you back. When they insult you back, they are also attacking you. Either way, you set yourself up to be the winner.

Also, calling a person dishonest is what you do as part of civil and friendly conversation?

I think you need, IMHO, at least one plan. Otherwise you're not saying anything.

Your ever-so-humble opinion needs a little more thought.

When someone puts forward a plan themselves for how to alleviate some problem, it is still helpful for others to review the contents of that plan and look for any shortcomings, or flaws, etc. I will repeat the analogy from before:

Suppose a group of people wants to solve the problem of human poverty and one of them offers up 20 possible fixes. Others in the group can point to #17 and think that is not an effective method, and they may be entirely right, even if they do not have anything to offer up in its place. Still, the discourse was productive and informative for those involved. If they had adopted #17, it may have been an exercise in futility, a waste of resources, or even backfired in some cases. Those would be valuable insights to have, even if they could not come up with a replacement solution for #17. Just knowing that that aspect is a bad idea, is still overall productive and useful insight to have.

Or it's on the level of "somebody should do something about this".

Or it’s on the level of “let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by pointing the gun at our toes and pulling the trigger.”

You've not offered up any possible fix. So there's not much to be for or even critique.

So what? Contrary to what you might say and think, I will be honest and admit “I don’t know.” I will not pretend to have answers that I do not actually have. It is not necessary for a person to pretend they found an actual cure for cancer, whenever they point out that turning off windmills is probably not going to do the trick.

Unless we discuss ways to combat religious thinking, then WTF is the point of this thread?

As stated numerous times already, the point of this particular thread was to discuss in further detail one smaller component of the much larger plan to combat religious thinking. To discuss that angle in further detail. If you have other approaches you want to also discuss in further detail, you can likewise start individual threads on each of them, or start an all-encompassing thread on it to discuss everything at once. Nobody here is stopping you.

Just general whining about how somebody else should do more?

So pointing out how a particular proposal to fix a problem contains some flaw is considered “whining” in your view. People should feel welcome to offer criticisms of other solutions, but only when they state they have a replacement? Even if we honestly acknowledge that we do not know what the right answer would be, we should still pretend we do, or otherwise shut up and stay silent? Your ever-so-great self-declared humility needs a little refinement.

I don't find that conversation meaningful. Not at all. A complete waste of time.

You are wrong though. Constructive criticism is useful when we apply it to various ideas and recommendations to help find flaws in them, even if we do not have a superior idea or recommendation waiting right in our wings. Just being made aware of a shortcoming in the original proposal may also help its originator, or even some other 3rd party, find a way to work around that flaw and improve on it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Or it’s on the level of “let’s not shoot ourselves in the foot by pointing the gun at our toes and pulling the trigger.”

People who don't try are guaranteed to fail.

You've not offered up any possible fix. So there's not much to be for or even critique.

So what? Contrary to what you might say and think, I will be honest and admit “I don’t know.” I will not pretend to have answers that I do not actually have. It is not necessary for a person to pretend they found an actual cure for cancer, whenever they point out that turning off windmills is probably not going to do the trick.

But unless you try, there's no chance in hell to cure cancer.

Unless we discuss ways to combat religious thinking, then WTF is the point of this thread?

As stated numerous times already, the point of this particular thread was to discuss in further detail one smaller component of the much larger plan to combat religious thinking. To discuss that angle in further detail. If you have other approaches you want to also discuss in further detail, you can likewise start individual threads on each of them, or start an all-encompassing thread on it to discuss everything at once. Nobody here is stopping you.

So far that hasn't been going so well for you, since it's been too abstract to be meaningful. So I don't understand what the point is?

Unless you figure out something that atheists can be for (collectively) they're not going to be motivated to speak up. We all like being a part of something greater than ourselves. That requires a shared goal. Unless that's a clearly identifiable thing atheists can get behind where's the motivation going to come from?

I don't find that conversation meaningful. Not at all. A complete waste of time.

You are wrong though. Constructive criticism is useful when we apply it to various ideas and recommendations to help find flaws in them, even if we do not have a superior idea or recommendation waiting right in our wings. Just being made aware of a shortcoming in the original proposal may also help its originator, or even some other 3rd party, find a way to work around that flaw and improve on it.

That requires that you've made some of plan or strategy that can be critiqued upon. You haven't done that, nor are you open to hear any from anybody else. Constructive criticism is only applicable if you are "constructing" something. The key is found in the expression itself.

 

[Brian63]

People who don't try are guaranteed to fail.

Aphorism games, ok. Here we go.

Sometimes we have to know when to cut our losses as well.

Even if you win the overall war, do not expect to win every battle in the war.

You will be setting yourself up for loss if you think any battle lost ultimately dooms you.

But unless you try, there's no chance in hell to cure cancer.

So we should try to turn off windmills, because there may be a chance that that will cure cancer?

So far that hasn't been going so well for you, since it's been too abstract to be meaningful. So I don't understand what the point is?

Well, I disagree and think this thread has been very useful in exploring this one paradigm commonly held by atheists, that we should not be critical of bad ideas, unless they are enforced on us. Well, what if they are not enforced on you particularly, but they are enforced on others besides you? Even if you grew up in a secular household and had a healthy childhood and adulthood, you still see your friend raising their child in an unhealthy religiously-indoctrinated and dogmatic household---since it is not being enforced on you particularly, should you just look the other way? Or does it matter to you that it is harming other people, or it only matters if it harms yourself?

Unless you figure out something that atheists can be for (collectively) they're not going to be motivated to speak up. We all like being a part of something greater than ourselves. That requires a shared goal. Unless that's a clearly identifiable thing atheists can get behind where's the motivation going to come from?

That is a good topic to explore further. Feel free to start a thread on it. If I have the time and any opinions, I will try to offer them. In the meantime, this particular thread was intended to discuss the attitude of “As long as they do not enforce it on me, I do not care” and how beneficial or harmful it would be.

That requires that you've made some of plan or strategy that can be critiqued upon.

No, that is wrong. It does not require that “I’ve” made some plan or strategy. In the example I gave, it happened to be another party that had a plan or strategy. Remember me saying that a group of people had a common goal of alleviating poverty, and one of them came up with 20 recommendations? They all looked them all over in greater detail and someone pointed to #17 and said “Hey, I think this one particular recommendation has a problem with it.” They may be right and it may be something that nobody else, even the original proponent, had noticed. Realizing that the problem even existed is more helpful to us finding a way to resolve it, than being unaware of the problem would be.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sometimes we have to know when to cut our losses as well.

So step one is to risk losing something. Unless you're doing that you're not really doing much, are you?

Unless you figure out something that atheists can be for (collectively) they're not going to be motivated to speak up. We all like being a part of something greater than ourselves. That requires a shared goal. Unless that's a clearly identifiable thing atheists can get behind where's the motivation going to come from?

That is a good topic to explore further. Feel free to start a thread on it. If I have the time and any opinions, I will try to offer them. In the meantime, this particular thread was intended to discuss the attitude of “As long as they do not enforce it on me, I do not care” and how beneficial or harmful it would be.

If you want to motivate atheists to stop having that attitude, it's going to require more than just whining. Which seems to be your great plan. It'll require something atheists can get behind. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Ruth Harris]

Okay. Thank you for your kind tone as well.

I agree with the original sentiment that religious indoctrination is more likely to do harm to the child and others than not, all else being equal.

The second view I hold has a subtle distinction from the first---the first is about whether indoctrination does harm to the child and others, while the second is about whether the child and others *ARE AWARE OF* the harm being done by the indoctrination.

Ah! I knew I had missed something. I thought you said that in response to my restatement of the original view.

Agreed. Most of us probably do not spend the entirety of our days going through scientific journals, but we can still draw some reasonable conclusions.

<referring to the article>...It touches on some of my objections to your statement that it is more than likely a child will suffer harm when raised in a religious home.

I will try to take a read of that later tonight, and respond more then.

But aside from that, typically atheists ask for proof when Christians make a statement regarding their faith. I am simply asking if you can support your opinion with objective research since I don't agree with your conclusion and I don't know of any studies on this particular subject.

No, I cannot cite "objective research" on that. I also cannot cite objective research to support the view that Neptune is not populated with invisible gremlins. I still believe those to be the case though. We gather our own local empirical observations and draw inferences from them about how the world works in general. We do not use "objective research" for every belief that is still reasonable to believe.

Well, my point is that if there is no known research on this subject, then what we are discussing is personal opinion - no matter whether we think it is a logical inference or not. I am not saying anecdotal evidence is not proof in certain circumstances, but I am saying that you should not make an extrapolation of that to be true in most or all circumstances without considering that there are other factors in play that may have had an impact for those specific people.

Curious---you mention you don't agree with my conclusion. Do you think my conclusion is wrong (and if so, why?) or are you moreso undecided on whether religious indoctrination harms children and others?

Well, this one is easy

I am a believer. Why would I think that raising children in my faith causes them harm?

And please note that when I say raising them in my faith, I am NOT saying that I raised mine to never think for themselves. To me, using the term "indoctrination" implies a complete ban on thoughts or discussions outside my chosen viewpoint - and this was never the case in my home, nor in the cases of most of my local fellow believers. The only examples you will find of this are those on the far religious right and they are a very small percentage of those who call themselves believers.

Ruth

 

[DrZoidberg]

And please note that when I say raising them in my faith, I am NOT saying that I raised mine to never think for themselves. To me, using the term "indoctrination" implies a complete ban on thoughts or discussions outside my chosen viewpoint - and this was never the case in my home, nor in the cases of most of my local fellow believers. The only examples you will find of this are those on the far religious right and they are a very small percentage of those who call themselves believers.

But even normal/liberal religion teaches children quite troubling things. Just the fact that you tell your children that you believe in God tells them that you think that that is a sensible belief. Belief in God really is quite bizarre. Any God. It's one thing to believe whimsical things. But we at least need to be aware of and open about which beliefs are a bit out there, and explain the difference to our kids. Otherwise I'd call that indoctrination. Religious faith is so normalised that we have a tendency not to treat it as absolutely preposterous in everyday speech. Just the idea that we should treat religiously held beliefs with respect is part of this indoctrination. No, we don't. we shouldn't. We should feel free to laugh at anything we find ridiculous. The same way to ridicule political leaders we don't agree with. Otherwise we're part of the conspiracy to indoctrinate people.

That's just how I feel about it.

 

[Brian63]

So step one is to risk losing something. Unless you're doing that you're not really doing much, are you?

Let’s put that plan into play:

Should we turn off all windmills because there is a chance that doing so will cure cancer?

We will never know unless we try, as you say.

If you want to motivate atheists to stop having that attitude, it's going to require more than just whining. Which seems to be your great plan.

Well I would be interested in seeing you actually offer useful contributions, and not just your own standard whining. If you really think you have a comprehensive solution to how to ablate all religious harm, then why would you not announce it from the rooftops? Or at least just start a thread on this forum on it?

Call it something like “My encompassing and exhaustive plan on how to alleviate religious damage across the world.”



You can write out an extensive OP and explain in specific details every angle of how to satisfy that goal. Before doing that though, you should write a preamble stating:

“Listed below are 1,000 recommendations of mine on how to minimize religious damage across the world and throughout time. If you think you just spotted a flaw in any of them, just shut your mouth about it, you whiner. Only if you can concurrently offer up an alternative will you be permitted to say anything.”

Good luck with that project.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[Brian63]

I am a believer. Why would I think that raising children in my faith causes them harm?

It depends on what the phrase “in my faith” means. If it entails that your children are pressured by you (or others in a certain community you are a member of) to hold certain beliefs about supernatural beings, and especially if their emotions and psyches were being preyed upon to fear guilt or shame about doubting those beliefs, then that would be harming them. If it was moreso that you would say “This is what I believe, and here is why. You are welcome to form your own opinions on the matter, and it is okay for you to disagree with me. You can also change your mind, based upon new information and new thoughts. I will not indoctrinate or pressure you into believing the same thing I do though” then that would be a lot healthier.

And please note that when I say raising them in my faith, I am NOT saying that I raised mine to never think for themselves. To me, using the term "indoctrination" implies a complete ban on thoughts or discussions outside my chosen viewpoint - and this was never the case in my home, nor in the cases of most of my local fellow believers.

Cool.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So step one is to risk losing something. Unless you're doing that you're not really doing much, are you?

Let’s put that plan into play:

Should we turn off all windmills because there is a chance that doing so will cure cancer?

We will never know unless we try, as you say.

If cancer prevalence around wind farms were very high, and we had no other competing theory, then yes, that would be the rational thing to do.

If you want to motivate atheists to stop having that attitude, it's going to require more than just whining. Which seems to be your great plan.

Well I would be interested in seeing you actually offer useful contributions, and not just your own standard whining. If you really think you have a comprehensive solution to how to ablate all religious harm, then why would you not announce it from the rooftops? Or at least just start a thread on this forum on it?

You've shot down every suggestion I've come with. Unwilling to even discuss them. So obviously I've put my money where my mouth is. So not sure what this comment is supposed to address?

Call it something like “My encompassing and exhaustive plan on how to alleviate religious damage across the world.”

You can write out an extensive OP and explain in specific details every angle of how to satisfy that goal. Before doing that though, you should write a preamble stating:

“Listed below are 1,000 recommendations of mine on how to minimize religious damage across the world and throughout time. If you think you just spotted a flaw in any of them, just shut your mouth about it. Only if you can concurrently offer up an alternative will you be permitted to say anything.”

Good luck with that project.

On the topic of straw men. I have made no such suggestion. I also think this is a terrible idea. Any singular plan to do anything this vast is doomed to failure. The only thing that can work is a multitude of projects. I also don't think they can be planned top down. It needs to be something that grows bottom up. People are also in different phases in life. So different atheist projects/movements will be attractive to different people. But above all, whatever movement we put in effect will need to solve at least one very concrete problem people have. As well as being secular in nature.

 

[Brian63]

If cancer prevalence around wind farms were very high, and we had no other competing theory, then yes, that would be the rational thing to do.

Well now you are adding other considerations into the mix. Your earlier comments were much simpler and basic:

“So step one is to risk losing something. Unless you're doing that you're not really doing much, are you?”

“But unless you try, there's no chance in hell to cure cancer.”

Now you seem to acknowledge that there is a cost to turning off windmills, and it is not something we should do just because there may be a “chance in hell to cure cancer” and we should not do it simply because “step one is to risk losing something. Unless you’re doing that you’re not really doing much…”

If we recognize there would likely be a drawback to a particular strategy and we can anticipate little benefit from it, that in itself is grounds to not engage in that strategy in the first place. So we shouldn’t try just for the sake of trying. When that trying would likely impose a relatively high cost and offer little reward.

Any singular plan to do anything this vast is doomed to failure.

You don’t know that unless you try…errr, something…

You don’t know that turning off windmills will not cure cancer, unless you turn off windmills.

 

[Brian63]

In an earlier post there was a brief exchange with DrZoidberg and me:

If you only focus on the belief in God,…

Who ever advocated (I certainly never did) that we should “only focus on the belief in God?” Please provide the exact quote and exact reference. If you cannot find it, please at least retract this strawman you are arguing against, repeatedly.

Note that DrZoidberg never cited any quote or reference for me actually espousing that view, and also never retracted the strawman or acknowledged the error.

If DrZoidberg wants to keep beating up strawmen while ignoring my actual positions, I cannot stop him. I will expose him though. This post will serve as one demonstration to the viewers of these red herring and strawman game tactics. It will continue to be posted again each time he continues to argue against the same strawmen.

 

[DrZoidberg]

If cancer prevalence around wind farms were very high, and we had no other competing theory, then yes, that would be the rational thing to do.

Well now you are adding other considerations into the mix. Your earlier comments were much simpler and basic:

“So step one is to risk losing something. Unless you're doing that you're not really doing much, are you?”

“But unless you try, there's no chance in hell to cure cancer.”

Now you seem to acknowledge that there is a cost to turning off windmills, and it is not something we should do just because there may be a “chance in hell to cure cancer” and we should not do it simply because “step one is to risk losing something. Unless you’re doing that you’re not really doing much…”

If we recognize there would likely be a drawback to a particular strategy and we can anticipate little benefit from it, that in itself is grounds to not engage in that strategy in the first place. So we shouldn’t try just for the sake of trying. When that trying would likely impose a relatively high cost and offer little reward.

If you believe that there's nothing atheist can do to convince theists to stop being theist, then why have you created this thread? Obviously you think that there exists something atheists can do that will lead to less theists.

To use your analogy, you do believe that turning off windmills will stop windmill noise cancer, and since you do the only way to verify that it's true is to turn off the windmills.

Any singular plan to do anything this vast is doomed to failure.

You don’t know that unless you try…errr, something…

Now you're getting it.

 

[Brian63]

If you believe that there's nothing atheist can do to convince theists to stop being theist, then why have you created this thread? Obviously you think that there exists something atheists can do that will lead to less theists.

Yes.

To use your analogy, you do believe that turning off windmills will stop windmill noise cancer, and since you do the only way to verify that it's true is to turn off the windmills.

No. I just reject the dumb statements you espoused like "People who don't try are guaranteed to fail.” Well actually, you can succeed without trying a particular method, sometimes out of luck, sometimes because you figure out some other method that would work better before you initiated the first method. There can be a significant cost to trying a method, so if we have no good reason to believe the method would work and good reason to believe it would fail (even before we put it into practice), then we would be better off not even attempting it, because that would cost us in the end.

As an exaggerated example to help you understand---

If a committee of people who fights to resolve world illiteracy meets and someone says “I want to solve world illiteracy by poisoning everybody’s drinking water, all in one fell swoop. It will not work in piecemeal and we cannot do sample tests, but it will work if all done concurrently worldwide.” Unless they use information and sound reasoning to justify implementing that idea, we should definitely reject that idea. Your “People who don’t try are guaranteed to fail” makes for a good aphorism but is clearly stupid when you give it slightly more thought.

Similarly you made a comment that “But unless you try, there's no chance in hell to cure cancer.” Try what specifically? Should we try pumping more methane gas into the atmosphere to cure cancer? Should we try an anti-vaccinating campaign against measles, because it might---just might---cure cancer? Should we try crashing airplanes into the ground because it might resolve world hunger? Should doctors try taking decapitating patients because it might cure their heart disease? At some point, we should not adopt the “let’s just try it, because we won’t know unless we try” strategy of living. We instead use past experience and draw inferences from them, to predict what causes will prompt what effects, and what will or will not work better for us.

Now you're getting it.

You’re still way behind though.