[split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-01-2014, 01:02 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 12:47 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Had I the inclination, I could pull up thousands of records of vehicular homicide resulting from people driving just over the legal limit, which can be as little as one drink if your weight, sex, and tolerance is right. Tell me, at what specific BAC does one move from drinking "in moderation" to "excessively"?

I say don't drink and drive, that can be legislated for.

(06-01-2014 12:47 PM)maklelan Wrote:  It's the specific attitude against which I'm leveling the alcohol example. If that's not your position, then my argument is not with you.

Fair enough, but it did appear to be aimed at me.

(06-01-2014 12:47 PM)maklelan Wrote:  No, you don't.

You don't know me.

(06-01-2014 12:47 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Absolutely, but rather than just be reactive about one of the biggest and most direct threats to human health and safety, I make a point of trying to be proactive about making the world a better place. As long as someone here is bitching about how religion needs to go away because it's dangerous, they need to bitch even more about alcohol or admit that they're being disingenuous.

Alcohol is not going to go away, the same as religion.

(06-01-2014 12:47 PM)maklelan Wrote:  That's one of what? And no, you don't know me at all, irrespective of what you may think you know about how these arguments go.

Well I said "I know you're gonna say "well good for you, but...." obviously meaning that you was going to come up with a counter argument that I'd heard before. Then you said "No, you don't know anything about me." Then went on to give a counter argument that I'd heard before.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes joben1's post
06-01-2014, 01:04 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 06:59 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  "Hobbyist atheists"? I call intellectual arrogance, with more than a soupçon of religious bigotry, on that.

So you don't think there are hobbyist atheists here?

[Image: StrawMenEPA_650x434.jpg]

Quote:
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  People are welcome to view the world any way they want, but requiring evidence is not "epistemological imperialism".

[quote]If you tell someone you demand evidence before you'll let them believe what they believe, yes, I would call them epistemological imperialism.

[Image: Strawman.jpg]

Quote:If they're not coming after you are trying to convince you of anything, why not just leave them alone?


Says the guy from the batshit-crazy church with mythical golden book that no one is allowed to see (wink, wink), standing at my door his magic fucking underwear trying to sell his batshit-crazy snake-oil religion.

If you would keep your batshit-crazy religion to yourselves, that would be fine. But you don't.


Quote:
(06-01-2014 05:44 AM)Chas Wrote:  Someone's internal states are not objective evidence.

Must everyone have and be able to surrender objective evidence, in your mind, for every belief or conception of reality to which they subscribe personally and privately?

[Image: TheStrawmen-001.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
06-01-2014, 01:06 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 12:41 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 11:51 AM)morondog Wrote:  Who says we're not worried about alcohol ? We don't have idiots saying 'you *must* drink', 'you are evil if you don't drink' running around. We don't have ancient books written by twits with frothing-at-the-mouth condemnations of people who don't drink contained therein, which are read and believed by a large majority of the population. We don't have powerful lobbies of people trying to spread misinformation about alcohol, or at least not on the scale of for example, the Creationist movement. Therefore we don't feel the same need to address the arguments of the alcohol pushers.

You'll just let 2.5 million people continue to die every year (in addition to the many millions more hospitalized, abused, and otherwise suffering as a direct result) because at least they're not being dicks about pushing it? Seriously? That's your argument?

*I* don't presume to dictate to others what to do with their lives. If there was a powerful alcohol lobby promoting the idea that boozing was a good thing, and it interfered with my life and those of my friends then I would be more active in opposing them. But you seem to be telling me that by declining to waste my own life chasing some noble moral cause *I* am responsible for those 2.5 million deaths ? I have my own causes which I support. I have limited time and resources.

Anyway you comparing religion to alcoholism and arguing 'because this is really bad and you don't go after those guys, why are you after us?' is funny enough. I battle to see how you think this strengthens your position.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
06-01-2014, 01:09 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 12:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  They should. We should also try to stop being from killing each other rather than just wag our finger at them and be content when they take responsibility for it.

But that's all we CAN do. Well more than just wagging a finger but I think you know what I mean.

(06-01-2014 12:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  You can legislate to mitigate it.

Agreed.

(06-01-2014 12:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Education is one of the answers. You advocate for some form of gun control, don't you?

Don't get me started on guns! No
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 01:11 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
Oh no, the bird's back. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 01:14 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:49 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:36 AM)Chas Wrote:  I wouldn't know since you haven't defined it. You seemingly intended it as an insult.

I've defined it above. I can see how it can come across as an insult, but I think it's much more fair than "amateur." I also don't think it's insulting to acknowledge a difference between my preparation in the study of religion and constituent and tangential fields, and that of the majority of the people here. I'm a hobbyist when it comes to things like physics and math, and I'm happy to be called such, but the story is different with things like linguistics, history, and the sociology, psychology, and history of religion.


In other words, guilty of intellectual arrogance and religious bigotry as charged.


Quote:So what would you say to all the people here repeatedly challenging someone who is just happy to keep going on believing privately?

[Image: straw-men.jpg]






(06-01-2014 01:11 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Oh no, the bird's back. Dodgy

[Image: 134835067955.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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-01-2014, 01:15 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
According to the CDC, an average of 3,880 people drown every year in the US.

I say we ban immersion baptisms immediately!

We have enough youth. How about looking for the Fountain of Smart?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Thinkerbelle's post
06-01-2014, 01:17 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:22 AM)maklelan Wrote:  I would call someone who bases the substance of their discussions and arguments with theists, whether in person or online, on non-vocational research into science and religion (primarily mediated through others and their websites) a hobbyist atheist. Someone with a career, or at least formal education, in a relevant field of study would not be a hobbyist, in my opinion. I also use that characterization for hobbyist students of religion, which are even more ubiquitous, and tend to do more to undermine the goals of the field vis-à-vis the public square.
Hmmm, atheism is not a vocation , people are not atheists in order to debate religious matters with theists.
I find that characterization to be ridiculous.
Formal education into religion doesn't make one's claims in this matter any more true or false.
It seems that you think that the formal education and the amount of books you've read on the subject make your claims more plausible.
Indeed. We don't need degrees in religious studies to see that The Emperor Has No Clothes.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Taqiyya Mockingbird's post
06-01-2014, 01:25 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 08:03 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Hmmm, atheism is not a vocation ,

Generally, no, but there are certainly professional atheists. My point was that the fields of study to which people appeal in the expression---and particularly the arguing---of their convictions, can be actual vocations.


I smell eel-wriggling.

Quote:
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  people are not atheists in order to debate religious matters with theists.

(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  I find that characterization to be ridiculous.

And I find the characterization of organized religion as dangerous and harmful to be ridiculous.

That characterization is based on mountains of evidence.

Quote: That's not to say it never is such, just as you can hardly deny that there are not any atheists here who base their claims on rather uninformed, fallacious, and amateurish principles.

Atheists don't intrinsically make any claim. And pointing out that you fail to satisfy your burden of proof of your claims is absolutely sound. Another straw man.


Quote:
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Formal education into religion doesn't make one's claims in this matter any more true or false.

It better equips them to digest as well as to present the data and the arguments.

^^^Pure intellectual arrogance. We don't need advanced degrees in religious studies to call you on your failure to satisfy your burden of proof.


Quote:
(06-01-2014 07:50 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  It seems that you think that the formal education and the amount of books you've read on the subject make your claims more plausible.

Which claims? I've not really made any faith claims, as far as I can remember, but my claims about what the facts and research do and do not show about religious belief and practice certainly are more plausible than those of people here without any real education or experience with the research, but just a strong conviction, an internet connection, and a reading of The God Delusion and The Selfish Gene.

Strawman much?



[Image: 2006_the_wicker_man_008.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
06-01-2014, 01:36 PM
RE: [split] maklelan and others discuss evidence
(06-01-2014 09:22 AM)maklelan Wrote:  
(06-01-2014 09:00 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  You are making it sound like it's a chess game, the one who makes better moves (arguments in this case ) wins.
But you lost sight of the big picture. The result is already in. God either exists or not.
Best arguments you can find in your books or the best rebuttals from professional atheists don't change a damn thing.
The simplest "hobbyist" can be proven right, and the most learned pro can be proven wrong.

But this is a straw man. I'm not here to argue about that, or to challenge anyone about that. I'm here to challenge their misunderstandings and misrepresentations of what religion and its study is and is not, and certainly one's education and experience play a role in whether or not they are right or wrong. I certainly hope you don't mean to insist, in addition, that any rhetorical and factual improprieties and abuses are perfectly acceptable given you're convinced there's no god.

I don't think you understand what a strawman fallacy is. SM certainly didn't commit one above, and you shit them all over the place here.

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: