John Gray

[A'isha]

I also notice that you're taking isolated chunks of my posts and responding to them, without bothering to understand the context of the quotes. Please stop doing that.

He does that to me all the time.

 

[tsig]

Again, what is your purpose in this discussion? If it's "Look at those morons; I'm so much better than them!" than no, the facts of their belief is irrelevant. Such masturbatory fantasies are of no use to anyone, however, and PZ Myers demonstrates what happens when you over-indulge is such activity. If, however, you want to have any real impact, you need to understand where the other side is coming from.

No.

It is not, however, impossible to know WHAT THOSE PEOPLE SAY. If you're unwilling to do even the most basic research into what your opposition says, you're no better than Jabba.

In what way is taking someone seriously pandering to them? In what way is accepting that THEY accept the ideas pandering? In what way is actually making my arguments something that they can understand pandering? In what way is having an informed opinion on a topic pandering?

Acknowledging that my opponent is using a polearm in no way admits defeat in a tournament. Similarly, actually knowing what theists say in no way means I accept their arguments. It means that I'm accepting reality for what it is, rather than what I want it to be, and I'm thus able to respond accordingly.

I get that you hate religion. But that's no excuse for poor scholarship, and arrogantly poor scholarship is a cancer that I have no interest in spreading.

By some, yes. That is no excuse for calling all theists ignorant jerks for the crime of believing they do.

I also notice that you're taking isolated chunks of my posts and responding to them, without bothering to understand the context of the quotes. Please stop doing that.

You sure don't mind calling atheists ignorant and arrogant do you? Why don't the religious have the same obligation to study atheism as I do to study theism? It's always a one way street with religion, atheists are supposed to study theology and understand all the intricacies of beliefs before they're allowed to express an opinion yet the religious can spout the craziest of beliefs without any problems and you defend them as being rational.

 

[tsig]

He does that to me all the time.

Sort of like you just did to Dinwar.

 

[Dinwar]

You sure don't mind calling atheists ignorant and arrogant do you? Why don't the religious have the same obligation to study atheism as I do to study theism?

First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant, not atheists in general. Ignorant, because you don't understand what your opposition says. Arrogant, because you are arguing that you have no need to do so. You do not represent the entire field of atheism.

Second, if you examine my posting history you'll find that I DO call out theists on their ignorance and arrogance, fairly frequently. I submit as evidence the Shroud thread. This is nothing more than you cherry-picking evidence. In reality, I call out ANYONE who is guilty of ignorance and arrogance. (Note that there's a difference between arrogance and pride--if you genuinely know more than someone, it's perfectly acceptable to point that out. If you're asserting that you're so much better than your opponents that you don't even need to listen to what they say, you're arrogant.)

Third, many theists HAVE examined the arguments made by atheists. Many of them were addressed as far back as the Middle Ages. It's not ignorant to say "We've addressed that, here's where, now go away until you understand what we're saying." That's merely the consistent application of basic principles of scholarship: doing the background research before pretending to have an informed opinion on the topic.

It's always a one way street with religion, atheists are supposed to study theology and understand all the intricacies of beliefs before they're allowed to express an opinion yet the religious can spout the craziest of beliefs without any problems and you defend them as being rational.

This is my mouth. That means only I get to put words there. Please stop trying to do it for me.

I have to admit it's much easier to formulate arguments when you also get to craft the arguments of the other side, such tactics are only effective in fiction, and then only to a limited extent. Plato's Dialogues are an example of doing this well. Conversations with me or with theists, in which you ignore what is stated and instead fabricate arguments that you then attribute to us, are an example of an inappropriate application of this technique.

As for their rationality, I have explained my position on this. They ARE rational--at least, from within their paradigm. Logic is GIGO--garbage in, garbage out. In many cases, the issue isn't their process of reasoning, but rather the data they accept. We are discussing the tactics that are useful for shifting an entrenched paradigm, and "Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic.

Sort of like you just did to Dinwar.

Not at all. ANTPogo didn't remove the quote from the relevant context, but rather addressed a side issue that can be isolated without stripping it of meaning. You, however, are taking quotes where I criticize your lack of scholarship and removing them from the necessary context (that being, how to discuss theism and atheism with theists) in order to fundamentally alter the meaning of my arguments (that being, you wish to make it seem like I'm advocating theism). ANTPogo also had the common courtesy to specifically call out the statement being responded to, rather than quoting huge blocks of text that are then completely ignored.

 

[tsig]

First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant, not atheists in general. Ignorant, because you don't understand what your opposition says. Arrogant, because you are arguing that you have no need to do so. You do not represent the entire field of atheism.

Second, if you examine my posting history you'll find that I DO call out theists on their ignorance and arrogance, fairly frequently. I submit as evidence the Shroud thread. This is nothing more than you cherry-picking evidence. In reality, I call out ANYONE who is guilty of ignorance and arrogance. (Note that there's a difference between arrogance and pride--if you genuinely know more than someone, it's perfectly acceptable to point that out. If you're asserting that you're so much better than your opponents that you don't even need to listen to what they say, you're arrogant.)

Third, many theists HAVE examined the arguments made by atheists. Many of them were addressed as far back as the Middle Ages. It's not ignorant to say "We've addressed that, here's where, now go away until you understand what we're saying." That's merely the consistent application of basic principles of scholarship: doing the background research before pretending to have an informed opinion on the topic.

This is my mouth. That means only I get to put words there. Please stop trying to do it for me.

I have to admit it's much easier to formulate arguments when you also get to craft the arguments of the other side, such tactics are only effective in fiction, and then only to a limited extent. Plato's Dialogues are an example of doing this well. Conversations with me or with theists, in which you ignore what is stated and instead fabricate arguments that you then attribute to us, are an example of an inappropriate application of this technique.

As for their rationality, I have explained my position on this. They ARE rational--at least, from within their paradigm. Logic is GIGO--garbage in, garbage out. In many cases, the issue isn't their process of reasoning, but rather the data they accept. We are discussing the tactics that are useful for shifting an entrenched paradigm, and "Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic.
Not at all. ANTPogo didn't remove the quote from the relevant context, but rather addressed a side issue that can be isolated without stripping it of meaning. You, however, are taking quotes where I criticize your lack of scholarship and removing them from the necessary context (that being, how to discuss theism and atheism with theists) in order to fundamentally alter the meaning of my arguments (that being, you wish to make it seem like I'm advocating theism). ANTPogo also had the common courtesy to specifically call out the statement being responded to, rather than quoting huge blocks of text that are then completely ignored.

"Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic."

"First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant"


Hummm....

 

[A'isha]

"Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic."

"First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant"


Hummm....

We understand what you're saying.

 

[mijopaalmc]

"Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic."

"First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant"


Hummm....

You do realize that "ignorant" and "arrogant" are not just insults; they may have negative connotations, but, like "racist" and "sexist", they convey information about the content of a pronouncement, its presentation, and the presenter.

I know that you don't like being so labelled, but rejecting ideas out of hand because they contradict your worldview and without bothering to avial yourself of the basics of the subject is the behavior that earns you the label. The best way to avoid the label is not to persist in the behavior.

 

[angrysoba]

"Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic."

"First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant"


Hummm....

You are ignorant by your own admission. You make sarcastic remarks such as these:

They think god exists, I don't. Do we have to discuss the shade of green of the dragon in my garage before you dismiss it?

IOW unless I take the believers delusions as serious as they do I can't call them delusions.

How can the study of a non existent being be serious?

Once you determine there are no UFOs how much ufology do you need?

You think theology is a serious study?

Which only shows that you are rather proudly ignorant of beliefs held by people you feel you are superior to. In other words you are arrogant too.

In what way can you claim that you are not ignorant given that you have admitted as much or that you are not arrogant given that almost every post of yours features the kind of supercilious remarks quoted above?

 

[Dinwar]

"Insult, belittle, and mock without bothering to understand what it is they're actually saying" simply doesn't fall into the category of a useful tactic."

"First, I'm calling YOU ignorant and arrogant"


Hummm....

Ignorance isn't insulting; your ignorance of theology is something you yourself are rigorously defending. You don't know theology. That's actually perfectly acceptable in even the most strict interpretations of intellectual discourse. I'm ignorant of many things--for example, I know nothing of sub-Saharan religious beliefs. Wouldn't recognize Zulu religious practices if I saw them.

Your arrogance is demonstrated in the fact that you are reacting quite agressively to the commonsense notion that to convince someone of something, you have to understand their perspective. It's one thing to not know something; it's another to refuse to know it and then claim expertise in a conversation about it. I don't know electrical engineering, so you know what I don't do? Tell electrical engineers how to do their jobs. You, however, have admitted--and even presented as the ideal (and, given your reaction to suggestions to the contrary, perhaps the only) rhetorical style for atheists in debates with theists--that you consider your ignorance superior to their knowledge of their side of the argument.

My argument, as I've said before, is simple: In order to change the minds of others, you have to know what they think. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to understand it. Otherwise you come off looking exaclty like Creationists do to scientists, and will have precisely as much impact. If there is a logical argument against that position I'd love to hear it; as far as I'm aware, in the past several thousand years none have been presented, and those who have agreed with my argument have made vastly more headway than those who do not.

 

[Belgian thought]

Ignorance isn't insulting; your ignorance of theology is something you yourself are rigorously defending. You don't know theology. That's actually perfectly acceptable in even the most strict interpretations of intellectual discourse. I'm ignorant of many things--for example, I know nothing of sub-Saharan religious beliefs. Wouldn't recognize Zulu religious practices if I saw them.

Your arrogance is demonstrated in the fact that you are reacting quite agressively to the commonsense notion that to convince someone of something, you have to understand their perspective. It's one thing to not know something; it's another to refuse to know it and then claim expertise in a conversation about it. I don't know electrical engineering, so you know what I don't do? Tell electrical engineers how to do their jobs. You, however, have admitted--and even presented as the ideal (and, given your reaction to suggestions to the contrary, perhaps the only) rhetorical style for atheists in debates with theists--that you consider your ignorance superior to their knowledge of their side of the argument.

My argument, as I've said before, is simple: In order to change the minds of others, you have to know what they think. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to understand it. Otherwise you come off looking exaclty like Creationists do to scientists, and will have precisely as much impact. If there is a logical argument against that position I'd love to hear it; as far as I'm aware, in the past several thousand years none have been presented, and those who have agreed with my argument have made vastly more headway than those who do not.

Perhaps - But if the starting point of current perspective is wrong e.g. 'In the beginning the world was not created in 6, 7, 8 days', does one really have to understand and learn the myriads and meanderings and in/misin terpretation of falsehoods based on that initial false perspective, and have to catch up to get to their present point of belief, simply in order to be able to tell them why they are wrong in the first place?

Is one not obliged to say that from evidence - their starting point is wrong without this arduous wasteful journey?

 

[A'isha]

Perhaps - But if the starting point of current perspective is wrong e.g. 'In the beginning the world was not created in 6, 7, 8 days', does one really have to understand and learn the myriads and meanderings and in/misin terpretation of falsehoods based on that initial false perspective, and have to catch up to get to their present point of belief, simply in order to be able to tell them why they are wrong in the first place?

If all you want to do is rant at them, no. If you want them to listen to you, though, you do.

Is one not obliged to say that from evidence - their starting point is wrong without this arduous wasteful journey?

"I don't know anything about what you believe or why, but it's wrong!" is unlikely to start a dialogue, and almost certainly is not going to achieve the results you want.

 

[Belgian thought]

If all you want to do is rant at them, no. If you want them to listen to you, though, you do.



"I don't know anything about what you believe or why, but it's wrong!" is unlikely to start a dialogue, and almost certainly is not going to achieve the results you want.

No ranting required.

However, it is perfectly arguable to state that since the premise/basis is wrong, what follows must be too.

Your proposed method would be to cut at petals of a fast growing plant.

This allows room for anyone to make statements about any aspects of the universe, and based on your approach, the duty of others would be to negate/debate/convince etc.., for ever more, as to the invalidity of such statements by a pruning method and not a stemming one.

And in line with that madness, I hereby state that - "A monster that is based on pasta created the universe" - discuss.

 

[Dinwar]

But if the starting point of current perspective is wrong e.g. 'In the beginning the world was not created in 6, 7, 8 days', does one really have to understand and learn the myriads and meanderings and in/misin terpretation of falsehoods based on that initial false perspective, and have to catch up to get to their present point of belief, simply in order to be able to tell them why they are wrong in the first place?

Of course not. I have never argued against people standing on soap boxes ranting and raving about anything. It's entertaining, and it gives you something to watch on a lazy afternoon.

It is not, however, useful in any way. You will never convince anyone of anything with such tactics. And you will certainly make yourself look foolish, because your refusal to learn what the other side is saying will inevitably lead to you arguing against things that side considers nonsensicle. Many of the supposedly slam-dunk arguments presented on this forum against theism were addressed in the Middle Ages. At the point where Medieval monks can demonstrate that you're talking nonsense, you are hurting the cause you are advocating.

You also can't pretend that's not what you're doing. Your logic is precisely on par with those "preachers" on street corners: "I don't care what you believe, I'm going to say my beliefs and demand you accept them."

Many theists believe what they believe for what are, to them, very solid reasons. AT MINIMUM you must demonstrate those reasons to be flawed in order to convince them that their conclusions are wrong. I've yet to hear any skeptic, atheist, Objectivist, or anyone else opposing theism explain to me how to do that without learning what the opposition says. There's only one way, and it'll earn you a million bucks if you can prove you can do it.

Is one not obliged to say that from evidence - their starting point is wrong without this arduous wasteful journey?

Depends. Do you want to dismiss it in your own mind, or actually convince others? If you simply want to dismiss it in your own mind, no, you don't need to know what the other side is saying. If you want to change minds, on the other hand, you need to know where they're starting from. Without that, you've got nothing upon which to base your arguments. That's why Dawkins is so annoying at times: he acts like no theist has ever thought of these ideas, despite a vast literature of theist analysis fo the problem. He ends up attacking, if not straw men, then certainly corpses of arguments that the theists have long since buried. They react the way any of us would if someone told us we hold beliefs that were dismissed back when broadswords were, please excuse the pun, cutting-edge technology. (Before you ask, I have already linked to an article discussing these arguments.)

 

[Dinwar]

No ranting required.

It astounds me that so many are either incapable or unwilling to see what the other side considers their arguments.

The theists will view your statements as nothing but ranting. And they will be right, because an argument would have to acknowledge the audience.

However, it is perfectly arguable to state that since the premise/basis is wrong, what follows must be too.

Not really--it's known as the Fallacy Fallacy. 2x2 doesn't stop equally 4 merely because the student confuses the "times" sign with the "plus" sign.

Your proposed method would be to cut at petals of a fast growing plant.

And you consider ignoring the nature of the plant to be effective?

This allows room for anyone to make statements about any aspects of the universe, and based on your approach, the duty of others would be to negate/debate/convince etc.., for ever more, as to the invalidity of such statements by a pruning method and not a stemming one.

You are confusing convincing someone they are wrong with demonstrating that something is wrong. They are two very different things. You can prove whatever you want to your heart's content, but as soon as you start trying to convince people you're right you have to take their knowledge and understanding into account.

And in line with that madness, I hereby state that - "A monster that is based on pasta created the universe" - discuss.

The Flying Speghetti Monster isn't theology. It's a parody of theology. We are not trying to convince FSM believers that they are wrong, we are trying to convince real theists that they are wrong.

 

[Belgian thought]

It astounds me that so many are either incapable or unwilling to see what the other side considers their arguments.

The theists will view your statements as nothing but ranting. And they will be right, because an argument would have to acknowledge the audience.

I saw their sides once and I can see them but I cannot agree to it based on various factors - I do know the audience.

Not really--it's known as the Fallacy Fallacy. 2x2 doesn't stop equally 4 merely because the student confuses the "times" sign with the "plus" sign.

Fair dos, but it is still worthy to point out fundamental false starts.

Gets the ball rolling.

And since the Fallacy Fallacy and others apply to both religion and believers, we have to start from the beginning.

And you consider ignoring the nature of the plant to be effective?

Not at all - describe the plant and its root correctly, but remain honest in describing the plant to the holder of said plant, for, in most cases, s/he is sadly not the grower.

The Flying Speghetti Monster isn't theology. It's a parody of theology. We are not trying to convince FSM believers that they are wrong, we are trying to convince real theists that they are wrong.

How dare you! I never saw the funny side of the FSM. I may have got the message wrong, but so it grows!*

Now have I now taken the wrong node in FSM? And if not me, someone else- what would be the solution for me or them?



*apologies to Kurt Vonnegut

 

[A'isha]

No ranting required.

"You're wrong. No, I don't have to prove it or explain why you're wrong, you're just wrong" is pretty much ranting. It's certainly not going to do much to convince anyone.

However, it is perfectly arguable to state that since the premise/basis is wrong, what follows must be too.

Dinwar has already pointed out the problems with this both from a logical standpoint, and because it betrays an ignorance of the fact that most theists have already come up with answers for the "standard atheist arguments". Unless you know this, and know what their answers are (that is, how they think about and understand and resolve the issues that far too many atheists think are easy "slam dunk" arguments and flaws with theism), at best you'll simply be feeding them old canards that they have long since debunked to their own satisfaction, and at worst they'll think you're talking nonsensically.

Your proposed method would be to cut at petals of a fast growing plant.

No, it's knowing that sometimes plants have developed a resistance to certain weedkillers, and understanding that will let you try different methods that might actually work instead of trying the same old useless method and then scratching your head when it doesn't have the effect you thought it would.

 

[Belgian thought]

"You're wrong. No, I don't have to prove it or explain why you're wrong, you're just wrong" is pretty much ranting. It's certainly not going to do much to convince anyone.

Have I ever said this? i.e. "You're wrong. No, I don't have to prove it or explain why you're wrong, you're just wrong"

 

[Dinwar]

I saw their sides once and I can see them

No offense intended, but considering the fact that you either can't or won't wrap your head around the concept of adjusting one's arguments to fit the audience I'm having trouble beleiving that. Not that I think you're lying--rather, I think you're mistaken about how closely your previous beliefs alined with those of most believers.

Fair dos, but it is still worthy to point out fundamental false starts.

Gets the ball rolling.

Pointing out? Perhaps. Belaboring? No. And it obviously doesn't get the ball rolling--we haven't moved an inch in this conversation, for example.

And since the Fallacy Fallacy and others apply to both religion and believers, we have to start from the beginning.

That's precisely what you're NOT doing. You're starting with your conclusions--at the end. I'm saying start with what they believe, and attack their reasoning as they believe it. Start with where the believer is now. And to do that, you have to know what the believer thinks.

Not at all - describe the plant and its root correctly, but remain honest in describing the plant to the holder of said plant, for, in most cases, s/he is sadly not the grower.

And how exactly do you intend to do that? You refuse to educate yourself on what the believers believe--or at least, you're arguing against the suggestion that you should do so. So upon what are you going to base your knowledge of their beliefs? Remember, theism includes a huge variety of concepts, from New Age paganism to Catholicism to Islam to Native American beliefs to some others I don't even know the name for. Even within the Christ cults there's an enormous diversity, such that none of us can assume our upbringing qualifies us to comment on the entire subset of religions.

Like I said, there's only one way to know something without bothering to learn it, and that method will net you $1 million if you can prove you can do it. Until that happens, research is required.

How dare you! I never saw the funny side of the FSM. I may have got the message wrong, but so it grows!*

Now have I now taken the wrong node in FSM? And if not me, someone else- what would be the solution for me or them?

Bad comedy aside, there are specific aspects of theology that the FSM lacks, such as any attempt to understand the nature of the FSM in a serious and rigorous manner (yes, theology attempts that--you may consider it a failed effort, but to say it doesn't exist is nothing but willful ignorance). Theology means much more, whether you're willing to believe it or not, than simply stating that your god exists.

 

[Dinwar]

Have I ever said this? i.e. "You're wrong. No, I don't have to prove it or explain why you're wrong, you're just wrong"

How else can one describe a refusal to learn what one's opponant actually believes?

 

[A'isha]

Have I ever said this? i.e. "You're wrong. No, I don't have to prove it or explain why you're wrong, you're just wrong"

How do you propose to convince them that they're wrong when you don't know anything about what they believe or why they believe that? What kind of argument can you even make other than the above?