Atheists becoming more vocal and outspoken

[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]

Yes.



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.

.

Don't change the subject. Your plan is to do nothing but whine at theists in the hope they'll stop being theists, without doing anything they can get behind. I maintain that's dumb. Your defense is that it can work sometimes. And to be really stubborn about not doing anything (except be whiny).

I think that's the summary of this thread.

Now you're getting it.

You’re still way behind though.

So close.

 

[Brian63]

Don't change the subject.

Don't tell me what to do, you whiner (irony intended).

Your plan is to do nothing but whine at theists in the hope they'll stop being theists,...

Yeah, you got it nailed precisely down there. It must be that super-duper self-proclaimed humility that you keep telling us you have which makes you so smart and civil and friendly, all in one package.

...without doing anything they can get behind. I maintain that's dumb. Your defense is that it can work sometimes. And to be really stubborn about not doing anything (except be whiny).

Is this civil and friendly conversation for you? Just stop the pretense that you are interested in that. Just be honest that you are not, finally.

 

[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.

 

[steve_bank]

Yes.



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.

People who do not try depend on luck and serendipity. The statement has meaning from observation. The statement that those who do not try wills fail means doing nothing on problem generally leads to failure, nothing gets done, that is out in the real world. The mining is obvious and the saying is in common use. You are carrying it to an absurd academic extreme. Your analogy are a weak argument.

Ckngress on immigration.

Is the poihnt of thread just debate with no purpose?

If you have had to actualy deal in any signigiant way with ideological sometimes fanatical Christians yiu would see why most of us post here.

Christians think they are in a war, and we atheists are the enemy. This is far from an academic debate. We see right now in the exchanges around VP Pence and his religious stance on gays. There is a Christian power segment of society who would through governent impose religion.

Up through at least the 50s being an outspoken atheist could get you into trouble in a community or at work. It can still happen in the workplace.

 

[Brian63]

Is the poihnt of thread just debate with no purpose?

Even if someone disagreed with me on the position, as many here do, why would you read the very OP of the thread and think that this thread exists with no purpose but to debate? Clearly there is a position that I am arguing for. It is a common rhetorical tactic, when you disagree with someone and especially dislike them, to accuse them of arguing without purpose. Just think about whether that accusation is accurate though before actually making the accusation.

 

[Rhea]

So, yes – open, frank, respectful conversation is always welcome. Derogatory statements or attitudes about the person are not, and this applies to both sides. I have defended atheists when people I know say things such as “All atheists are stupid” and have made it very clear that they are completely wrong. I would expect no less from an honest atheist if they heard the same thing about all believers.

So have you torn out of your bible the passages where it says exactly that? If not, you are not really defending atheists if you still own a bible and listen in a church when they contain bibles that say that. Is it respectful to love a bible that is disrespectful of atheists?


“The unbeliever is a fool”
“Do not be yoked to an unbeliever, because what business does darkness have with light,” etc.
“The unbelieve shall perish and be not welcome in heaven.”

If you are willing to see a bible and NOT tear out those pages, then you aren’t really able to claim that you “defended atheists when people I know say things such as “All atheists are stupid” and have made it very clear that they are completely wrong.”

As long as you tolerate copies of a bible that EXPLICITLY says exactly that, your claim to defend atheists against it is hollow and untrue. Don’t you think?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Don't tell me what to do, you whiner (irony intended).



Yeah, you got it nailed precisely down there. It must be that super-duper self-proclaimed humility that you keep telling us you have which makes you so smart and civil and friendly, all in one package.

...without doing anything they can get behind. I maintain that's dumb. Your defense is that it can work sometimes. And to be really stubborn about not doing anything (except be whiny).

Is this civil and friendly conversation for you? Just stop the pretense that you are interested in that. Just be honest that you are not, finally.

You are the one saying all this!!! I'm just saying back to you what you are saying. If you find this offensive then you are insulting yourself.

Unless of course you don't mean what you said or you haven't been clear? So have you?

 

[Brian63]

The problem was not that your words are offensive, it is that you are intentionally and unapologetically trying to be offensive, all the while trying to put on a deceitful show that you are just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation. When I write words with the intention of insulting someone, I will not be dishonest and say that I was not. If asked, I will admit that that was the intention. You still do the opposite though, and pretend to want civil and friendly conversation all the while writing out these very uncivil and unfriendly comments. Own your words or retract them. Do not try to deceitfully try to play it both ways though.

 

[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.

 

[steve_bank]

Is the poihnt of thread just debate with no purpose?

Even if someone disagreed with me on the position, as many here do, why would you read the very OP of the thread and think that this thread exists with no purpose but to debate? Clearly there is a position that I am arguing for. It is a common rhetorical tactic, when you disagree with someone and especially dislike them, to accuse them of arguing without purpose. Just think about whether that accusation is accurate though before actually making the accusation.

What about your responses is substance to the OP and not just a rhetorical exercise?

You miss the point. The academic intellectual who takes apart colloquial expressions literally, missing the point of the expression.

If you play the role of the offended aloof intellectual you will get no sympathy around here.

Don't throw down the gauntlet unless you intend to do battle.

 

[Brian63]

Ok.

 

[Ruth Harris]

So, yes – open, frank, respectful conversation is always welcome. Derogatory statements or attitudes about the person are not, and this applies to both sides. I have defended atheists when people I know say things such as “All atheists are stupid” and have made it very clear that they are completely wrong. I would expect no less from an honest atheist if they heard the same thing about all believers.

So have you torn out of your bible the passages where it says exactly that? If not, you are not really defending atheists if you still own a bible and listen in a church when they contain bibles that say that. Is it respectful to love a bible that is disrespectful of atheists?


“The unbeliever is a fool”

I assume you are referring to Psalm 14:1, where it says “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” You are probably not going to like what I have to say now – this is the same mistake that a lot of Christians make by trying to read the Bible literally. It actually has nothing to do with basic intelligence.

According to Jewish tradition, the Psalms were written by King David to his fellow Jews. Rabbinic studies of this Psalm concluded that the intent was to rebuke those Jews who were falling into what they considered heresy – they were not written with the unbeliever or those outside the Jewish faith in mind at all. Christians should therefore read this as being a warning for those believers who are not living in accordance with their faith, to be true to the intent of the original text.

“Do not be yoked to an unbeliever, because what business does darkness have with light,” etc.

I assume that you are referring to 2 Corinthians 6:14 “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”

This book is traditionally attributed to Paul and Timothy, and was a letter written to a church in Corinth. This church had a rather troubled existence and was continually in turmoil over one thing or another (sounds rather like the current church, doesn’t it?). The church consisted of converts from Judaism as well as multiple Gentile religions. There were members in this church who wanted to meld their original faith and practice with this new one of Christianity – and this is precisely the point of the first part of that scripture. That was to be forbidden. The only thing to be taught in the church was the new faith.

It can also be read to mean that believers should not ally themselves with non-believers to the exclusion of fellowship with believers. This is rather common sense; what do you think would happen if a believer associated only with those who did not believe, or those who followed a different faith? The same could be said about atheists who associated only with believers. How long do you think it would take for either to convert if they never heard anything but what those they listened to had to say?

The third thing that is often mentioned in regard to this verse is believers marrying non-believers. Once again, this seems rather common sense to me. Can you imagine how difficult a marriage would be between a faithful believer and a strong atheist? I find it very hard to imagine a life without continual arguments between them. Who would want to live that way?

“The unbelieve shall perish and be not welcome in heaven.”

I am sorry, I don’t know where you got this in the Bible. Can you tell me what you are referencing?

If you are willing to see a bible and NOT tear out those pages, then you aren’t really able to claim that you “defended atheists when people I know say things such as “All atheists are stupid” and have made it very clear that they are completely wrong.”

As long as you tolerate copies of a bible that EXPLICITLY says exactly that, your claim to defend atheists against it is hollow and untrue. Don’t you think?

No, I do not think I am being untruthful. If I am it is completely unintentional and if you will tell me about it I will happily explain or recant.

Ruth

 

[Rhea]

You are probably not going to like what I have to say now – this is the same mistake that a lot of Christians make by trying to read the Bible literally. It actually has nothing to do with basic intelligence.

To hold onto unintelligible passages that require controrted explanations to weasel out of the pretty clear insult they deliver is a rather profound indictment of the poor validity of the bible, don’t you think?

I’ve heard some Christians try to explain away, as you did, the clear words that are used by other christians in far greater numbers to demean, vilify and oppress non-believers.

So, I say what I said at the beginning. If you honestly want a religion that does not call all atheists fools, criminals, evil and “other,” you need to tear out those pages and preach against them.

But, since they’ve been in these english version for hundreds of years, and in other language versions even longer, one can quite clearly deiscern what christians like to do with them.

The difference between what you say and what you do, is what you do. And if you carry around a bible that has these damaging passages, you do a thing; as outlined.

Yeah, I’ve heard 1 in a hundred chrsitians try to explain to **ME** how it doesn’t mean what it says, it’s just misunderstood. I would prefer if you would come tell me that after you have finished convincing the 99, mmkay? Until then - it means what it means to today’s christians, and what it means to them is how they treat us. And your scholarly disagreement does not actually change that one bit.

Indeed, when you “defend atheists” to these people you know - do you really think they believe you over their bible? Do they walk away changed and preaching the new love to other hating christians? Or do they nod their heads and go back to the bible that they interpret in plain language.

(Corrollary: a real “god” would not have so much trouble being understood.)

 

[DrZoidberg]

The problem was not that your words are offensive, it is that you are intentionally and unapologetically trying to be offensive, all the while trying to put on a deceitful show that you are just trying to have a civil and friendly conversation. When I write words with the intention of insulting someone, I will not be dishonest and say that I was not. If asked, I will admit that that was the intention. You still do the opposite though, and pretend to want civil and friendly conversation all the while writing out these very uncivil and unfriendly comments. Own your words or retract them. Do not try to deceitfully try to play it both ways though.

Trying to shift the focus over onto how polite I am won't fix the logical holes in your arguments. I've already said that I have no interest in discussing comparative politeness. I'm guessing that the thing you find offensive is that I don't agree with you. But this is a discussion forum, so tough luck. How about focusing on the problems I'm highlighting rather than your hurt ego?

 

[Brian63]

Great diagnosis again, DrZoidberg. In that post right there you not only have demonstrated yet again a terrific knack for exposing the logical holes in my stupid viewpoints, but you also have a terrific knack for diagnosing my underlying and psychological and emotional deficiencies for holding those stupid viewpoints. I don't suppose I could get your generous help to set up any kind of therapy or rehah course to help me treat and cure my illnesses, could I? Would you be willing to help someone like me who has been so mean and bullying towards you, when they criticized you for calling them "dishonest" which was unnecessarily inflammatory and false rhetoric way earlier in the thread? Are you do harbor too much ill will towards me to ever be willing to assist me?

All love.

 

[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]

Great diagnosis again, DrZoidberg. In that post right there you not only have demonstrated yet again a terrific knack for exposing the logical holes in my stupid viewpoints, but you also have a terrific knack for diagnosing my underlying and psychological and emotional deficiencies for holding those stupid viewpoints. I don't suppose I could get your generous help to set up any kind of therapy or rehah course to help me treat and cure my illnesses, could I? Would you be willing to help someone like me who has been so mean and bullying towards you, when they criticized you for calling them "dishonest" which was unnecessarily inflammatory and false rhetoric way earlier in the thread? Are you do harbor too much ill will towards me to ever be willing to assist me?

All love.

You're always free to ignore any help you are given here.

 

[Brian63]

Will do, especially when it is bad advice from an incompetent and ego-driven advice-giver who is more interested in put-downs than civil and friendly discussion, all the while dishonestly maintaining that he wants civil and friendly discussion. Oh, when he refers to civil and friendly conversation, he happens to include in that calling you dishonest and defensive and being sarcastic and condescending to you. We just have different ideas apparently of what civil and friendly conversation implies.

 

[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.