I'm Too Hostile to Believers
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-06-2014, 12:46 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 10:50 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 09:34 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Translation: Immediately topical evidence is evidence relevant to the immediate topic, ie, the argument in question. This is the difference between calling someone an idiot, versus showing that the argument that they have put forward is idiotic and that they are by extension an idiot. One, as you point out, is a baseless ad hominem that does not address the idiot's actual argument. While correct in the abstract, as a response to my comment this was a straw man on your part. The other addresses the idiot's argument quite thoroughly, and then uses the idiot's failure in argument to provide reasonable support for the additional, tangential point that the idiot is an idiot. I suggested that this would be feasible in the case that the idiot was in fact an idiot rather than just being called an idiot, and you maliciously and/or ignorantly (and either way idiotically) chose not to address this, in favor of a straw man that was itself a subtle ad-hominem.

Have a nice day! Big Grin

Philosophical arguments are not classified as "idiotic" or "non-idiotic".

They are classified as either deductive or inductive.

Arguments are either formally valid or invalid regarding their form, informally valid or invalid regarding the absence or presence of fallacies, sound or unsound regarding the presence of true premises and logical validity, or the absence of one or both of the aforementioned. They contain premises that are said to be either more plausible than their contradictories or not.

Thus, in summary, a good argument will be formally and informally valid and have true premises that are more plausible than their contradictories.

Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-08-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p. 30). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.


Thus in philosophy, arguments are not said to be idiotic or non-idiotic but good or bad.

So it seems to me that since you appear to be unaware of these facts, you are the last one that should be calling someone or their argument "idiotic".

Good or bad? I thought you said that they were inductive or deductive.

Or formally valid or not formally valid.

Perhaps we can consider other qualities of arguments, like "contains a non-sequitur fallacy" versus "does not contain a non-sequitur fallacy". Or "consisting of more than eighteen words" versus "consisting of eighteen words or less".

We might even consider whether an argument has the quality of "so obviously fallacious that even seriously advancing it is a mark of idiocy". Since you need the clarification, that will suffice as a definition of an idiotic argument.

Since you need the clarification.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
21-06-2014, 01:39 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(20-06-2014 12:12 AM)Misanthropik Wrote:  I grew up as a believer. The entirety of my childhood was focused on (and, I now realize, stolen by) the ritualized belief in and worship of God. Everything I did, I did for God.

But that's a story many of you are familiar with, because you've lived it as well. Since losing our faith, though, we now see belief for what it really is. It is irrational. It is unreasonable. And, in many ways, it is positively harmful. It is morally disruptive, and it causes a great deal of damage to our society - even in the most subtle of ways. For this reason, I am angry. Yes, I am the stereotypical "angry atheist" who belittles the beliefs of others and encourages them to do away with such ways of thinking.

The problem is that I'm a little too hostile. In fact, I can be downright savage toward others when engaging with them about their beliefs. A lot of people point to Dave Silverman, for example, as someone who is "too aggressive" with believers. He posts billboards that read "You know it's just a myth" or "You know they're all scams," and everyone - even those within the atheist community - gets up in arms about how he's being too direct and how he's only going to turn people off. But frankly, I could never see what was so offensive about such methods. To me, people like Silverman aren't being hostile enough. Here are just a few gems of vitriol that I've spewed against believers:

"Your beliefs are dog-shit. Plain and simple. No, I don't have to respect them. Your beliefs are a disease."

"When did I suggest that human life is superior to ANYTHING? Now you're pulling blind assumptions out of your ass. Not surprising, really; it's what you believers do."

"Once you stop being a selfish prick, maybe you'll be able to make a positive change, rather than masturbating in your god's love."

"Your belief is a disease of the mind. There is no "tolerable" level of disease. There is no point at which your beliefs are ok."

And, of course, the ever-popular punctuation to any argument:

"Fuck yourself."

So…I'm more than a little hostile. (Those were all culled from just the last hour of argument with several individuals, btw. We've not even begun to examine the tip of the iceberg)

I've been listening to a lot of the "Dogma Debate" podcast, lately. In fact, it's become my new favorite podcast of all time. I can't get enough of it. One thing that's really begun to sink in with me is how the host(s) go about arguing with believers. They don't shame and ridicule. They don't berate and they certainly don't issue profanity-laden insults. Quite the opposite, actually. The main host - David Smalley - has a stern method of compassion when dealing with these people. He doesn't try to change their minds by yelling at them. Rather, he tries to change their minds by relating to them as human beings and connecting with them on a personal level. He prefers compassion over vitriol.

And the truth, if I'm being completely honest, is that it works much better than my method. Yes, aggression has its uses. It really does. But I'm beginning to feel as though I've been using that as an excuse to be hostile with believers. "Sometimes you have to smack people in the intellect with a sledgehammer in order to wake them up," I've always said. But while that may be true, it doesn't mean every problem requires a hammer. It doesn't mean I have to go swinging left and right and knocking everyone's intellectual teeth out. It makes me feel a lot better to do that, yes. But I'm slowly beginning to accept the truth that it does little to make them more susceptible to a change of mind. In reality, their walls go up, and it becomes a competition of who can be more hostile than the other before everyone storms off. Invariably, I spew such hatred that they give up and leave; telling me they'll pray for me and that they hope I can "one day learn to live a life of love with God, instead of a life of hatred without him." I just end up making non-belief look bad for everyone else.

The point of all this rambling is that I want to be more calm in my interactions with believers. I actually have had civil interactions in the past, and the results were always much more rewarding. They were open to my views, and, to some extent, even changed their own in accordance with my arguments. People really are more open when I'm not being a complete asshole to them. (Imagine that) The problem is that I get so fucking angry when I'm confronted with certain beliefs or with certain arguments that I can't control myself. I go off. I try to keep it cool, but my fuze is very short and I become a ravenous, angry, "militant" atheist. I don't wish harm upon any of my opponents, but I do completely break down who they are as individuals. I attack their beliefs (as we should), and then I attack them for holding such hideous beliefs (as we…shouldn't? Should we?). Again, this is when walls go up, and no progress is made.

How the hell do people manage to be so calm and collected with believers? Teach me your ways.

When someone comes up to you and asks that you abandon reason, give up your mind and accept your own depravity without a shred of objective evidence, then I'm not sure anything short of physical assault is too hostile.

The one mitigating factor that I see is that for most they were indoctrinated from the earliest years of their lives to believe these things and not to question. In that sense they are really victims of child abuse. Looked at that way it is hard not to feel some compassion for them and a desire to help them. With them it pays to be polite and just try to plant brush fires of reason in their minds.

I think that the ones who deserve every ounce of hostility and contempt are the preachers and leaders. They have made it their career to promote this stuff and they bloody well have had plenty of time and opportunity and have a duty to check every premise of what they are teaching. They are the intellectual leaders and they are promoting a philosophy that has profound implications for the lives of the followers and especially when that philosophy instructs its followers not to question for themselves and to rely on an authority for all knowledge.

I really think the aggressive proselytizers enjoy being screamed at. It helps them to pretend that they are right. The worst thing you can do is laugh at them.

So I think the best thing to do is to treat them like abused victims and save up your vinegar for the abusers.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like true scotsman's post
21-06-2014, 09:37 PM (This post was last modified: 21-06-2014 09:42 PM by Taqiyya Mockingbird.)
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 09:26 AM)kim Wrote:  What about you, Taq? What is your take on trying to relate to your fellow human being who might wander in to this forum to possibly see where they fit in?

Could you phrase your question a little more vaguely? Hobo


(21-06-2014 11:17 AM)kim Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:44 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  Laugh out load

I understand the funny Shy but I also think it's a valid request. I'm always curious about peoples' ideas concerning intent and effectiveness.

It's vague as fuck.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 09:40 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 10:50 AM)Jeremy E Walker Wrote:  
(20-06-2014 09:34 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  Translation: Immediately topical evidence is evidence relevant to the immediate topic, ie, the argument in question. This is the difference between calling someone an idiot, versus showing that the argument that they have put forward is idiotic and that they are by extension an idiot. One, as you point out, is a baseless ad hominem that does not address the idiot's actual argument. While correct in the abstract, as a response to my comment this was a straw man on your part. The other addresses the idiot's argument quite thoroughly, and then uses the idiot's failure in argument to provide reasonable support for the additional, tangential point that the idiot is an idiot. I suggested that this would be feasible in the case that the idiot was in fact an idiot rather than just being called an idiot, and you maliciously and/or ignorantly (and either way idiotically) chose not to address this, in favor of a straw man that was itself a subtle ad-hominem.

Have a nice day! Big Grin

Philosophical arguments are not classified as "idiotic" or "non-idiotic".

They are classified as either deductive or inductive.


PhiloSophistry is not proof or evidence.


Quote:Arguments are either formally valid or invalid regarding their form, informally valid or invalid regarding the absence or presence of fallacies, sound or unsound regarding the presence of true premises and logical validity, or the absence of one or both of the aforementioned. They contain premises that are said to be either more plausible than their contradictories or not.

Arguments MUST answer to EVIDENCE.

You have NONE.



Quote:Thus, in summary, a good argument will be formally and informally valid and have true premises that are more plausible than their contradictories.


WRONG. Arguments must answer to the EVIDENCE.

Quote:Moreland, James Porter; William Lane Craig (2009-08-20). Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (p. 30). InterVarsity Press. Kindle Edition.


FUCK you and FUCK your snake-oil salesmen heroes.

Quote:Thus in philosophy, arguments are not said to be idiotic or non-idiotic but good or bad.

Say your favorite idiot heroes.

Quote:So it seems to me that since you appear to be unaware of these facts, you are the last one that should be calling someone or their argument "idiotic".


Those aren't facts. That is you and your idiot heroes trying to move the goalposts and dodge your BURDEN OF PROOF.

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 09:49 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 09:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:26 AM)kim Wrote:  What about you, Taq? What is your take on trying to relate to your fellow human being who might wander in to this forum to possibly see where they fit in?

Could you phrase your question a little more vaguely? Hobo

(21-06-2014 11:17 AM)kim Wrote:  I understand the funny Shy but I also think it's a valid request. I'm always curious about peoples' ideas concerning intent and effectiveness.

It's vague as fuck.

Well, the question was not vague so I'm guessing that you mean that your intent is vague.

That explains much.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
21-06-2014, 09:52 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 09:49 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:37 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Could you phrase your question a little more vaguely? Hobo


It's vague as fuck.

Well, the question was not vague blah blah blah...

...because some fucking troll-ass-sucking idiot on the internet says so?

Drinking Beverage

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 10:11 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 09:52 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:49 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Well, the question was not vague blah blah blah...

...because some fucking troll-ass-sucking idiot on the internet says so?

Drinking Beverage

Dodgy

Comprehension issues? Would it be easier for you if we just used google images to communicate?

Kim was curious about your...
[Image: 1198-61587-000_EN.jpg]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes DLJ's post
21-06-2014, 10:23 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 10:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 09:52 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  ...because some fucking troll-ass-sucking idiot on the internet says so?

Drinking Beverage

Dodgy

Comprehension issues?

Yes, you do appear to have serious comprehension issues. Among other things. You know, we could probably bolt some sort of device onto your head that blocks and prevents you from inserting it completely up the rectum of every troll who shows up here. Maybe some kind of giant E-Collar.

[Image: hBB86E00F]


Quote: Would it be easier for you if we just used google images to communicate?

Kim was curious about your...
[Image: 1198-61587-000_EN.jpg]

Yes, because I simply bit flim-flam's head right off on the first post, didn't I, you fucking idiot?

Drinking Beverage

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 10:47 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 10:23 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 10:11 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Dodgy

Comprehension issues?

Yes, you do appear to have serious comprehension issues.

Ah! The unassailable "I know I am but so are you" defense.

How could I have been so blind as to not see that coming? Facepalm Big Grin

(21-06-2014 10:23 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, because I simply bit flim-flam's head right off on the first post, didn't I, you fucking idiot?

Drinking Beverage

OK, perhaps Kim was being too vague for your comprehension skills. My apologies for not making allowances.

Kim will correct me if I am incorrect but I believe she was asking about your general demeanour rather than any specific occurrence.





This is fun Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-06-2014, 10:54 PM
RE: I'm Too Hostile to Believers
(21-06-2014 10:47 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(21-06-2014 10:23 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, you do appear to have serious comprehension issues.

Ah! The unassailable "I know I am but so are you" defense.


Not a defense at all. I did not concede your pathetic claim, I shot it right back in your stupid face. My assertion is precisely as valid as yours.


Quote:How could I have been so blind as to not see that coming? Facepalm Big Grin


Because

[Image: headupass.jpg]


Quote:
(21-06-2014 10:23 PM)Taqiyya Mockingbird Wrote:  Yes, because I simply bit flim-flam's head right off on the first post, didn't I, you fucking idiot?

Drinking Beverage

OK, perhaps Kim was being too vague for your comprehension skills. My apologies for not making allowances.

Not a matter of my comprehension skills at all. Kim is being a passive-aggressive fucktard. No surprise here. And no surprise that you, who loves the stench of troll ass so much, would play into it.


Quote:Kim will correct me if I am incorrect but I believe she was asking about your general demeanour rather than any specific occurrence.

I am straight up with everyone here. The fact that you can't fucking figure it out is your own fucking problem.

Quote:This is fun Big Grin

...Fun for you to make an ass of yourself.

[Image: whatever-floats-your-goat.jpg]

It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: