This message was self-deleted by its author

[enki23]

This message was self-deleted by its author (enki23) on Tue Apr 16, 2024, 10:06 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. Every argument FOR religion begins with 'I believe'.

But to address the fallacy in your argument above, not every argument about religion is about 'your discernment'. In fact, very few are. This can be easily determined by asking yourself 'Did this argument exist before the 'you' who is claiming the argument is about his/her powers of discernment came into the picture?

Any argument that was proposed before you personally were born cannot possibly be an argument against 'your discernment', as it predates you. You 'discernment' or lack thereof, came about after the argument, so attempting to claim that such arguments are ad hominems about yourself is utterly ludicrous.

[enki23]

2. It doesn't matter whether, or when somebody said it first.

I already noted that one in the ...and ends with "I believe," part. It doesn't matter whether a person is imagining they have a new thought. They still have to pick which thoughts to have. That's what "discernment" means.

[Brettongarcia]

242. And likewise? Every argument against Atheism, is ad hominem. In addition ...

Who are you? "Discernment" is a keyword in the Catholic priesthood; it refers to the act of learning, deciding - "discern"ing - whether you want to be a priest. As such, it is a religious - even priestly - term. A concept previously colonized by the Church; and loaded with prior agendas.

However, even if we ignore this loaded term, technically of course, you are misusing the term "ad hominem." As defined by its own proper sphere: Philosophy, and specifically Formal Logic.

Technically to be sure, everything a human being says to another human being, has a "human" element. However? As defined philosophically, the question is to what degree is the speaker trying to address an idea per se, as such, and on its own rational and scientific merits. Vs. attempting to simply impugn or assassinate the character of any person who occupies a different opinion; an opinion other than the position that seems best justified by objective evidence. Evidence as defined not by priests - but by Philosophy.

You are misusing the phrase "ad hominem" therefore. And therefore? It might be useful next to look at your use of another key term: "discernment."

Are you intending to privilege the Catholic priestly mindset? If so, it might be useful to look into the priestly world, vs. the world of science, and objective evidence. To see what we can find there.

[enki23]

250. No, that's wrong.

At least, it's wrong unless you take an extreme position on what we have for shared experience. I already addressed this in the main thread, though people seem to have repeatedly ignored that. There is a difference between between saying "Jesus (with some/all of his typical religious trappings) exists" and "chocolate exists." You might be able to take a stance that we don't know for sure chocolate exists, and say that any argument against chocolate's existence is an ad hominem attack against anyone who truly believes in the existence of chocolate. But that would be fucking stupid.

Religion is a special case. Because religion claims there are special ways of knowing that (usually) don't apply to anything else in the world. Many religions refer to it as "faith" or something roughly equivalent.

As for misusing "ad hominem," I think you really, really missed the point there. That *was* my point. Or a large part of it. You have a problem with the misuse of claims of "ad hominem attack!!!!11" you'd best look to your side first.

Finally, about your semantic digression about "discernment:" Catholics don't have a monopoly on that definition of discernment. (Also, that isn't just "discernment," that's referred to as "vocational discernment," which is a specific type of exactly what I'm talking about.) Discernment means the ability to "just know shit", because God's helping you/speaking to you/sending you messages/whatever. In this context just knowing shit about various aspects of your religion. See: "gift of discernment" in every charismatic church that believes in the gifts of the spirit.

[hrmjustin]

3. I don't believe in magic.

[enki23]

4. That you are reduced to arguments about preferred vocabulary should be noteworthy to you.

You believe in your discernment. We all do. I just don't happen to believe mine is adequate to prove supernatural claims. And I don't think yours is either. And that's why it will always be an argument against you, by me. And against me, by you. See?

[hrmjustin]

5. Look I can't prove to you what I believe. I know it is not scientific.

I also know people think it is not logical. People can make arguments against religion and not be insulting. I don't take everything as an attack.


But some do love to insult religious people just for fun.

[enki23]

14. Sure. Or sometimes they just do it out of frustration. And it goes both ways.

But the background rates are different. There are far more religious people than nonreligious. One insult could be felt by hundreds of millions. And there are hundreds of millions to fling them back. My side has fewer mouths, and fewer ears. Whatever we do, we necessarily do less of it.

The religious fling more insults, and yet they hear more. Because there are more of them.
The religious fling more complaints, and yet they hear more. Because there are more of them.
The religious mete out more persecution, yet "feel" it more. Because there are more of them.

It's just numbers. And your side's lack of motivation to consider them.

[hrmjustin]

16. Actually in real life I rarely get insulted by atheists. Just here for the most part.

[enki23]

22. That's because we're concentrated here. Why is that surprising?

Religious people are concentrated everywhere. If you were in my position, you would understand that. You'd even be used to it. But it would still piss you off. And you'd get to be pissed off *everywhere*. Not just here.

[hrmjustin]

24. Do you experience a lot of discrimination because of your beliefs?

[enki23]

28. Are you kidding?

If people knew my beliefs where I live now, I would find that I was never offered another contract for my work. That is the truth. There are people who at least *say* they would like to hurt people who are like me (without knowing I am one). I console myself that they probably wouldn't. It would hurt me in finding a place to live. It would hurt me in finding a life partner, were I not fortunate already. It hurts me in getting help when I need help, which is often these days. It doesn't hurt me in ways that you see, but that's because there are few of us, and you don't hear our complaints very often. And probably don't care. You seem to believe saying mean things on the internet is what "persecution" is. And sure, that can be part of it. But it's the smallest part.

It's true that it's not as bad or overt as some kinds of discrimination. Because most of us are white males, and have other advantages that even it out. That doesn't mean we aren't discriminated against by the religious majority. It just means that there are multiple dimensions to our existence, and religion is just one of them. And not always the most visible one. But here, it's more visible than most. Many people here inquire about the church you attend within the first few minutes of conversation. An evasion is always noted.

[hrmjustin]

32. I am very sorry to hear this.

I can only say I hope that people would get over their prejudices about non-believers.

[Brettongarcia]

84. Related to this, is differential survival.

We only hear from those who survived the tornado, about how God saved them. But where are the voices of those who died in the storm? The voices that would have told us that God did NOT save THEM.

[AtheistCrusader]

55. What's wrong with calling it magic?

Your own description of it sounds a lot like... magic.

Of course, magic isn't real, but that never stops anyone either.

[hrmjustin]

104. Nothing is wrong with it really but the negativity from the word makes me hesitant to use it.

[AtheistCrusader]

105. I guess I don't see the negativity.

No moreso or less than any other supernatural/metaphysical sort of thing, anyway. Same playing field.

[hrmjustin]

107. Well I really don't think about it much to be honest.

[okasha]

12. I don't believe

in glib, self-serving excuses for personal attacks.

But thanks for being honest enough to admi that that's all you've got.

[enki23]

15. I believe you don't like what you believe about me.

But you're still wrong. You should know better, but you don't. And yes, that's ad hominem. Because, like I said, it really is all about you. And that is precisely the problem.

[okasha]

21. Thanks for proving my point.

[enki23]

23. I'm asking this in absolute seriousness. What was your point?

Because, so far as I can tell (and I'll admit it's not clear) it sounds like your point is actually my point. And it sounds like you don't realize that.

[okasha]

27. My point is that your

post comes down to an admission that the best you can offer is to call someone who disagrees with you a troll.

But you get half a gold star for admitting it.

[enki23]

33. Oh, this is about the rug thing?

Rug was being a troll. That's as close to objectively true as one can get, with something like "trolling." But relax, I'm done with rug. I will go ahead and poison that well by adding that I would expect some variation of "that's great/haha, I win/whatever" from him/her that now won't need to be forthcoming. The facts remain: your buddy was being a troll, your buddy has never made any reply to me that was ever anything *but* being a troll, and your buddy gets away with the silly slagging bullshit merely because he and his kind in this place have been reduced to letter-of-the-law contempt that hides behind bare minimum compliance with the local regulations. As if that's admirable, or meaningful, or any of it.

So, yeah. About your "admission" thing from the subject line. I guess you have me stumped. I have to say it appears you just don't have the capacity to engage with what I actually said. I can't fix that for you.

[rug]

42. Is that the best you've got? Calling somebody a troll?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

80. Looks like he's got you on ignore.

Doesn't seem to notice any of your responses to your posts.

[rug]

202. Just as well. He's reduced to name-calling.

[skepticscott]

35. And of course you had to

lie to make your so-called point. Again.

Or did we all miss the part where this poster called someone a troll? If you'd like to prove you didn't just pull that out of your ass, then please show us where the word "troll" was used.

Or are you going to use the standard horseshit religionista argument that amounts to "well, they didn't use those EXACT words, but I know for certain that's what they MEANT, so I'm going to accuse them of it anyway" or some tired variation of that?

[enki23]

38. I did, in another thread. Rug was being a troll.

I'm not concerned about his/her essential identity as troll/not troll. It's a well understood behavior, and he or she was engaging in it there, and elsewhere. If saying so is against the rules, someone can go alert on that, and hide it so that it can be brought to *everybody's* attention. I'd be annoyed, sure, but I'm not so invested as to be worried about that. I said a true thing, against the rules or no. And he/she was trolling, against the rules or no. And there's no hiding that part from anybody who bothers to open their eyes.

[rug]

44. I'd love to play blackjack with you.

The way you doubledown I'd be rich in no time.

[okasha]

52. Hey, deal me in, too.

I used to play with a women's group, and we were all cutthroats at it.

[rug]

203. I bet he'd play blackjack like the bingo ladies, with a lucky troll next to him.

[rug]

43. And of course you had to

lie to make your so-called point. Again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218137801#post67

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=137893

[hrmjustin]

47. Maybe you should try reading next time.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=137893

[skepticscott]

65. Certain posters here are so habitually useless

that I no longer pollute my screen with them. And no, I won't be trying to read their sewage just to be sure I don't miss something.

[hrmjustin]

99. I noticed you won't admit you were wrong.

[skepticscott]

108. Coming from you, that's rich

and ironic.

[hrmjustin]

109. Scott say what you want about me and many peop, e could but you were still wrong.

The links prove it and the poster told you.

[trotsky]

111. Oh who the fuck cares?

Scott didn't have access to the posts because he has rug on ignore. It would seem right now you're only trying to score points, which our civility overlord says is a Very Bad Thing.

[hrmjustin]

114. So it is ok. Huh!

[trotsky]

116. You win the point, justin.

Scott is wrong and horrible, and you and rug are right and noble and pure. Congrats.

[hrmjustin]

121. I did not know he had rug on ignore.

But his response was harsh.

I see somethings have not changed here.

[trotsky]

123. Most atheists in this group do.

And I think you know very well why, even though you find nothing wrong with rug's behavior. If that's who you are going to hold up as a model of civility though, well, it's hard to see how one should expect anything else than what you see here.

[hrmjustin]

125. Trotsky do not put words in my mouth. I never held anyone here up as a picture of civility.

Read what I write please.

[trotsky]

126. Alright then, write something about what you think of rug's behavior.

I'd like to read what you write.

[hrmjustin]

127. No. this is not about rug.

If you dislike him take him off ignore and tell him yourself.

[trotsky]

128. So if you never write anything, how can I possibly know what you think?

All I know is you've never criticized anything he's said, or how he's said it. Perhaps this is because I have him on ignore? At any rate, if you have never posted any objection to what he says, and you won't say anything now about it, then you have absolutely no reason to attack me for pointing out that you evidently have no problem with his behavior, and therefore I put no words in your mouth.

So will you admit you were wrong?

[hrmjustin]

130. Wow, just wow!

this is not about you so stop trying to make yourself the victim here.


I was talking to scott and you are trying to make this about you.

[trotsky]

133. I am no victim.

I just think you are still a better person than this. I wish that person would come through.

[hrmjustin]

135. It was a mistake taking you off of ignore.

Unfortunately I need to keep you and the others off to do my job on mirt. Last week two new posters came right to this room and I needed to observe them and having 5 on ignore here wasn't letting me do my job. So this is why I need to keep my ignore list clear for now.


Let me say I give a damn what you think of me. Your friend said something about my friend and I corrected him. The both of you cried about it. You turned it into your war with rug. Not everything is about you and your wars with members of this site.

Trotsky I placed you and the others on ignore because you bring out the worst in me. it is not very nice but it is true. I know I am not as civil as I used to be but you need to realize you are a big reason for that.


If this continues I may just put you back on ignore but I am not in a position to do that. So lets just agree we don't care for one another and move on.

[hrmjustin]

138. truth hurts but it is the truth.

Have a good day.

[okasha]

145. "some more slams on mr."

So you're a victim, after all.

You poor widdle thing.

[trotsky]

150. And the expert on personal slams and baseless attacks and endless snide remarks chimes in.

Great to hear from you okasha. Way to set the tone.

[hrmjustin]

155. Lead by example.

[trotsky]

159. Fine. No more fucking excuses.

Point out everything I've said in this thread that you think caused me to deserve being treated like shit. I'll own it and delete it.

Let's get this on. What I will expect from you in return, then, is a castigation of rug and okasha for the vile shit they say.

Deal?

[hrmjustin]

162. I am not here to castigate them. if they say something I dislike I will let them know.

People that are friendly to me get pms.


You responded to me. If you don't want my opinion then don't respond.

[trotsky]

165. Well that's exactly what I figured.

Judgmental to the end.

[hrmjustin]

166. how would you know what rug is saying anyway?

You claim tp have him on ignore.

[trotsky]

169. You're absolutely right.

He could be a saint these days, a perfect DU citizen.

Perhaps I should take him off to check? Nah, no need. He's still up to the same shit - as this subthread PROVED! It's all about someone calling rug a troll! LOL. C'mon Justin, you gotta make this a little bit harder for me!

[hrmjustin]

172. Your enjoying yourself?

[trotsky]

173. Absolutely.

Because I love putting the spotlight on double standards.

[hrmjustin]

174. And how am I engaging in a double standard?

[trotsky]

175. Oh wait, that's right, you don't think it's a double standard.

Never mind, you're a saint! Very sorry to have suggested that you judge some people's behavior one way, and others' behavior another way.

Oh wait a minute, I didn't suggest that... you admitted it.

[hrmjustin]

176. wow you can dish it out but your not good at taking it.

Try answering the question now.

[trotsky]

178. I just did.

Go back and re-read your post #162.

You should also re-read your advice you gave in that post, since this discussion kicked off when YOU butted in and replied to my post directed to okasha.

[hrmjustin]

180. Buddy this whole thing started when you addressed me earlier. .

[trotsky]

182. You're right, it sure did.

And it ends for me now. You may carry on if you wish, but I've said my piece.

[hrmjustin]

183. Good bye and I hope our encounters in the future are more pleasant than this one was.

[rug]

212. If you think he truly has me on ignore, he might be right about the gullibility of believers.

But he is wrong.

[hrmjustin]

213. lol!

[rug]

211. It's a wonder he can still summon the energy to type.

[okasha]

139. Thank you Justin.

You're undoubtedly the single most consistently civil and fair-minded person in this group. You always keep it real.

[hrmjustin]

142. Thank you.

But to be fair I have my moments.

[okasha]

143. Not many.

But I fear I'm about to have one.

[hrmjustin]

144. Just be cautious. people like to alert.

But you should say something to you know who.

[okasha]

146. I know.

But the last two I'm aware of were pretty laughable. As Bill Clinton said of the American people, DU'ers almost always get it right.

[hrmjustin]

147. You know I noticed 7t has been two years since my one and only hide here.

[okasha]

148. Case in point.

Every now and then a jury does something puzzling, but they do almost always get it right.

[hrmjustin]

149. No it was a poor joke and it taught me a lesson.

[rug]

214. + 100

He has more patience than animal control.

[okasha]

221. He's a "DU whisperer."

[rug]

222. !

[skepticscott]

170. As I said, it's deeply ironic that you would try to upbraid anyone

for not admitting they were wrong, when little ol' you thinks they should. This whole sub-thread is you doing exactly that, and it's only one of many in which you try to do so, with an endless stream of passive-aggressive one-liners.

I deeply regret that you took me off ignore. Would you mind fixing that?

[hrmjustin]

171. No I need to see all responses because I am on mirt. Yes I know it is a shame.

We were getting along so well during this period. But you could always do it.

But you did say whay you did to okash and you can't admit you were wrong.

[skepticscott]

177. Tell you what

I'll admit I was wrong, if she'll sincerely apologize for accusing people here (one person in particular) of not really giving a shit about LGBT rights, and only harping on them as an excuse to bash religion. Because I think even an apologist like you would have to admit that that was a really despicable a thing for DUer to say about another. Wouldn't you? Or are you going to dodge that question too, or play Gomer Pyle and feign ignorance of the whole thing?

As long as that stands, I have no qualms about thinking the worst about okasha and her motives. And as long as you're fine with her saying that, I have no qualms about thinking the worst of you, either, despite your endless pretense.

[hrmjustin]

179. Have you told her your feelings about what she said? if you tell her you might feel better.

I have no doubt in my mind you care about lgbt folk.

[skepticscott]

184. As expected, you dodged the question

from which I can only assume that you support her implicitly in that attitude and statement. She knows perfectly well that what she said was truly disgusting, as she was told so at the time. She's sticking to her story, though…apparently it comforts her to delude herself that way. Rather than being grateful that people actually care enough to speak out about injustices that don't affect them directly, she preferred to find a phony excuse to hate them and discredit their sincere convictions and principles.

[hrmjustin]

185. Well go tell her how you feel. ithink you guys care about lgbt people.

I think you were wrong yesterday.

[skepticscott]

187. Then you should have no problem

condemning her statement, as I do, and telling her how wrong she was, as I did. Or are your principles in this case phony and hypocritical?

Do you have the courage to do that, or are you going to respond with more weaseling? My money's heavy on the latter.

[hrmjustin]

189. I not going to throwmy friend under the bus for an old thread. God knows the treasure trove of your

posts we could condemn you with. I will not condemn her. I did not agree with the statement and that is it.

We do not claim to be angels but your not one either. You have said things here to upset people, but unlike others I don't bookmark old threads to throw it in people's faces.

I bookmark mirt and host stuff and things related to it.

Judge your own writtings.

[okasha]

194. Thanks, Justin.

The post in question referred not to "atheists" in general but to a handful of posters at DU. And I do indeed question the sincerity of any poster who calls a gay or lesbian person a homophobe.

I'm now going back to not responding to trotsky or scott. Their posts speak for them more clearly than anything I could say.

[hrmjustin]

195. Your welcome my friend.

I remember you were called a homophobe. I can not remember who said it but I remember I saw it.

[rug]

217. Yeah, it's a sleazy tactic that a handful use.

[skepticscott]

234. Respond or don't

But the fact remains, you accused other DUers of only pretending to care about LGBT rights as an excuse to bash religion. The exact number of people you intended to smear is irrelevant to the fact that it was a really despicable thing to say. Even coming from you, it was over the top nasty.

If you'd care to cite anything that trotsky and I have ever posted that even comes close to being that vile and dishonest, have at it.

[skepticscott]

196. I win the bet on weaseling..what a shock

No one is asking you to hurl anyone beneath a form of mass transit. Are you saying you wouldn't tell a friend if they'd done or said something deeply wrong, even though you knew it was deeply wrong? Apparently so. Thanks for proving trotsky's point about your blatant double standard.

Btw, we bookmark old threads because so many of the religionistas here are blatant hypocrites, who should be exposed. If that upsets you, tough. It shouldn't upset anyone interested in the plain truth. No one honest or with any intellectual integrity should be afraid to have their own words or anyone else's quoted directly and accurately, now should they? Only liars and hypocrites are worried about that. They scurry for the corners when you shine a light on them.

And where did I ever claim to be an angel? Sheesh you do make shit up. If I've upset people with the harsh truth, tough. I stand by what I post.

[hrmjustin]

198. I stand by most post.

Keep going if you like. Last word and all.

[skepticscott]

200. I'll let you have it

since you apparently have no other life than to sit at your computer hitting refresh and waiting for something to respond to.

You've proven once again that engaging you is an utter waste of time.

[hrmjustin]

201. And you have proven taking you off ignore was a mistake.

My life is my business and not yours.

[trotsky]

181. Actually scott, it wasn't just one person she accused.

There was her other post claiming that "atheists" would just "go back" to hating homosexuals and minorities if they didn't hate believers.

You are correct, it's a vicious and uncalled-for smear to accuse fellow DUers of such a nasty thing. It derailed her campaign for host of this group.

[skepticscott]

197. She apparently has the full and unqualified support of

all of the other religionistas here, including all of the ones who claim to value civility and decency. Not one of them had the courage to stand up and condemn her accusation for the hateful filth it was.

[rug]

216. I've seen better admissions from republicans.

[rug]

215. Ah, you still refuse to admit error, even in the face of evidence.

There's irony.

[rug]

210. He wouldn't dare.

Because, of course, he wouldn't like the response.

Hence,

[rug]

209. Oh, that's precious coming from you.

[okasha]

151. One of the first things you learn when you live in brush country

is not to put any of your appendages into a space you can't see. Stick your hand into a bobcat's den, kitty"s likely to relieve you of a finger or two.

Scott's little "misspeak" wasn't rug's fault, and your double-down and hand-waving isn't rug's fault, either.

It's all yours. Own it.

[trotsky]

152. Own what??

Scott didn't have access to the posts where the claim that rug was a troll was made.

The only blame I give rug is why his behavior has caused half the room to put him on ignore.

Now please be my guest let loose with your best petty snipes and show me the kind of behavior you expect from others. Go ahead.

[hrmjustin]

156. So are you responsible for people putting you on ignore?

[trotsky]

157. There's only one person right now I'm aware of that has me on ignore.

And apparently I am far from alone on her ignore list so I really don't give a fuck.

I am so disappointed in you, justin, for associating with people like rug and okasha. I really though you were better than them. You've never thrown the kind of nasty vitriol that they have.

[hrmjustin]

158. I got news for you I know of several others who personally told me they have you on ignore.

Look at yourself first before you judge.

[trotsky]

160. That's great. Good for them!

I also invite you to re-read Matthew 7:3 and John 8: 7. Doesn't your religion teach not to be judgmental?

You are far from an innocent bystander in all this, justin.

[hrmjustin]

161. Answer the question.

[trotsky]

167. I have no idea!

I told rug exactly why I placed him on my ignore list.

As I do with everyone I place on it. No one has done me that courtesy so how the hell should I know?

Now answer my question. Doesn't your religion teach you not to be judgmental?

[hrmjustin]

168. Yes this is true.

[rug]

219. Do you think using an internet ignore list is making some sort of moral statement?

[okasha]

163. Would it violate the rules

to mention how many star members had scott on ignore the last time his transparency page was visible?

[hrmjustin]

164. I wouldn't because people will press buttons.

[okasha]

186. Ah.

Let's just note, then, that it must have taken really hard work and dedication.

[hrmjustin]

188. I had 21 people ignoring me.

[okasha]

190. Obviously you're just not putting your mind to it.

[hrmjustin]

191. I see things have not changed here since I had them on ignore.

Some can dish it out but can't take it.

[rug]

220. No. Transparency, etc.

Besides he has his own list of bookmarks he cherishes.

[rug]

218. Of course he had access. Maybe he should just click the little button before spouting bullshit.

[rug]

208. Looks like scotty was trying to score points but failed.

[rug]

206. Cognitive dissonance.

Although reading this exchange makes me wonder what he does pollute his screen with.

[hrmjustin]

207. Well you were right that nothing changes.

[edhopper]

6. What do you call

water into wine, walking on water and loaves and fishes.
I thought you believe that miracles are real.
How is that not magic?

[hrmjustin]

7. You can call it magic if you like. I call it the creator and his Son at work.

[edhopper]

8. How is that not magic

by it's very definition?

mag·ic
ˈmajik/
noun
noun: magic

1.
the power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.


adjective
adjective: magic

1.
used in magic or working by magic; having or apparently having supernatural powers.

[hrmjustin]

10. You can call it magic. I choose not to.

I call it God at work.

[edhopper]

11. You can call your dog

a zebra, he's still a dog.
Or are you claiming God has no supernatural powers, if so, how does he accomplish these things that circumvent the laws of nature?

[hrmjustin]

13. Look go ahead and call it magic. I don't like the term.

[edhopper]

17. Oh,

because of other connotations for it?

That is your choice, you can use other terms, but to say that you don't believe in magic, rather than you don't want to use that term is contradictory when you say you believe Jesus and God performed acts that are commonly called magic in the English language.

I don't believe in magic. Because I don't accept that the supernatural; exist. You say you don't but bel;ieve in the supernatural. These are opposing viewpoints and can't both be descriptions of not believing in magic.

[hrmjustin]

18. Yes the negativity that has been attached to it makes me not want to use the term.

[edhopper]

25. Okay

[mr blur]

63. That's because it's embarrassing. But magic is what it is,

No matter what you describe it as in order to cover your embarrassment.

[cbayer]

64. He doesn't seem embarrassed in the least.

I wonder what might make you project that on to him.

[Brettongarcia]

86. "Denial." The perpetuator utterly denies the problem, and appears serene. Even to himself.

It's related to blackouts. A problem was too big to face; so it's just blacked out. Leaving the perpetrator with, in his own mind, no problem at all.

Similar to the serene appearance of sociopaths.

[cbayer]

88. So in this brief and utterly offensive post, you have implied that justin is in denial,

having episodes similar to blackouts and that he may be a sociopath.

I would address the use of the term perpetrator in this context as well, but I can't even figure out where that is coming from.

You continue to present a rather complete lack of understanding about psychology or psychiatry. The links you make between denial, blackouts and sociopathy have no basis in reality, let alone in terms of what is being discussed here.

[Brettongarcia]

92. The explanation? I did not say that Justin was a sociopath.

Last edited Wed Jul 2, 2014, 11:00 AM - Edit history (1)

In blackouts, the victim forgets bad things that happened to him. This can be clearly related to "denial"; as Freud noted, people blank out of their minds, things that their conscious mind cannot face.

Both these two processes, relate partially to sociopathy; in that the sociopath is a sort of method-actor; he blanks out - or never notices - his human emotions. But merely mimics them to others, to manipulate them through their belief in them.

I said these things are often related. I did not say identical. Therefore in noting Denial in Justin, I did not say he was a sociopath.

Here's a first scholarly source on links between Denial, Blackouts, and Sociopathy. Basically they employ verisions of what Freudians would call Suppression and Repression. Which are "defense mechanisms." When the mind finds it difficult to face a painful fact, often the mind plays tricks on us; and "forgets" the offending fact.

http://www.psychiatrytheory.com/downloads/psychological_defense_mechanisms.pdf

Forgets, or does not allow himself to think it. Here's another guide for specifically, physicians. That begins to note blackouts especially, as an organic version of Denial:

"The etiology and natural history of alcoholism

HN Barnes - Alcoholism, 1987 - Springer

... not been able to stop, is so intolerable that the harmful effects of drinking are denied. ... Although
denial is primarily a psychologic mechanism, there is a large organic component. ... Chronic abuse
of alcohol induces blackouts, which are periods of amnesia for events and behavior ..."

This is in Alcoholism, A Guide for the Primary Care Physician http://www.amazon.com/Alcoholism-Guide-Primary-Physician-Frontiers/dp/1461291550

[cbayer]

106. This is not what a blackout is.

Denial due to traumatic events are different than neurologically based blackouts. This is not what Freud described them as and you appear to be just fabricating this. Blackouts related to alcohol intoxication are neurological events and have nothing to do with blocking out a negative memory.

You have taken two completely unrelated quotes from this book and made them look like they are referring to the same thing. They are not. The first is about denial. The second is about amnesia. They are not related in any way whatsoever.

The middle one just appears to be completely made up.

[Brettongarcia]

153. The two, three, are mentioned together in the article, because they are related in some way.

What way do you think?

[hrmjustin]

100. oh I am not embarrassed for my beliefs.

And welcome back.

[Brettongarcia]

102. Thanks

But how would you deal with the curious structural resemblance between miracle and magic?

Just saying it makes you "uncomfortable" does not quite give a rational explanation. Just an emotional one. While often an emotional appeal does not seem to be enough. Sometimes we are made uncomfortable by untruths; sometimes, by painful truths.

Traditional theology DOES try to make the argument that magical conjuring is from the devil; and miracles are from God. And that's the difference we are told. But what about the odd resemblance between them, still?

Some might suggest here that what we think is from God, might really be from the devil, actually. What we thought was from god, was actually from ... Magical sorcery, after all. The Bible warned there are many "false spirits" that claim to be from God, after all (1 John 4.1).

Maybe promises of miracles, the insistence that they are not magical tricks, that they are from God, all really come from false spirits. Maybe our holy men were really ... magicians and sorcerers, posing as our prophets and saviors. As the Bible warned they would often be.

[hrmjustin]

103. Look I really don't think ajbout it that much. I hesitate to use magic because of the negativity

attached to it.

[Brettongarcia]

154. But just saying you don't want to think about something, isn't good

1) Refusing to think, is bad generally. 2) Then too, it is a common form of trying to avoid facing things maybe you should face. People just try to put things out of their minds, that are painful; that is what "repression" and "suppression" do, said Freud.

There is always the chance that our pastors are wrong about some things, said the Bible itself ("all have sinned"; "no one is good but God"; "Now this is for you, O priests&quot . Therefore, even the Bible itself finally told us not to trust too much in our holy men. We should not fail to think carefully about things they say ... when the things they promised seem false.

So when the Bible tells us that Jesus walked on water; made bread appear out of thin air. And when John 14.13 ff. told us that Christianity promises us that "whoever asks," will be able to do "all the works that Jesus did, and greater things than these"? Then we ourselves should be able to walk on water, today. And yet try this: ask God for the power to walk on water "now," and see if you can walk across the backyard pool. What will happen, is that you will discover that the things you were promised, fail one Biblical test for the truth of any giving saying; they fail to "come to pass" (Deut. 18.20 ff). These promises of miracles seem false. And in roughly the same way that magic promises were false. Stage magicians do not actually make rabbits appear in empty hats; they are tricking you.

Why should we think about, face these things? Because they are signs that indeed, just as the Bible warned, there do seem to be things promised to us by holy men, that do not seem true. This being the case, we should be alerted not to trust our churches so strongly any more. But instead, we should begin to be more wary. And we should apply critical thinking to them.

Yes, calling miracles "magic" is critical of them. But I am suggesting that the Bible itself tells us to often apply critical thinking to religion. To learn to separate the true from the "false prophets" for example.

To many of us who do this, it seems clear that all those who promised big physical miracles to us, were among the false prophets the Bible itself warned about.

And if that is true, we all need to re-think religion, deeply. To extricate ourselves from the false prophets. And try to find the real ones.

[okasha]

19. The classic theological answer to that one is simple.

It is inherent in the nature of God not to be bound by natural law.

There goes your problem.

[edhopper]

26. That is called magic

In the English speaking World.

[okasha]

40. I'm going to assume

that you're unaware of the connotations of your remark.

Hasta luego.

[edhopper]

45. It would be magia, magie, moshu

In places that speak other languages. But this forum is in English.
Or did you assume I was making some prejudiced western bigoted statement.?
And what happens when we assume?

[okasha]

53. See posts 44 and 52.

Wanna play?

[edhopper]

67. Sure

Why don't you write a long tiresome response why the phrase "in the English speaking world" is a horrible thing to say.
And make sure you completely ignore my point to Justin about what the English definition of Magic in English is.
Show us how you have no desire to engage in true dialog but only find tortured "gotcha" statements that anyone with a brain can see are not meant as you so gleefully wish to infer.

Please proceed.

[okasha]

98. Got up on the wrong side of the bed, did you?

Coffee first. Then post.

[edhopper]

204. Like to hit and run

Do you?

[cbayer]

68. I think the problem here is that magic is being used in a pejorative way and

implies some sort of deception by the magician.

That's what I think is being objected to.

Most theists and certainly most who post here would not insist that they "know", but would say they believe or have faith, while acknowledging that it is not knowable.

The OP refers to the theists "magic ability to know" and "the magical discernment of the religious", and I believe that is what justin objects to in his first post. He says clearly that he can't prove anything about his beliefs and finds the OP's contention that believers are merely practicing some kind of magic insulting.

Beliefs and faith are not magic and to call them that is a dismissive attempt to minimize them.

[edhopper]

69. Hmm?

words is complicated things.

[cbayer]

70. Yes, particularly when they can be used in different ways.

It seems disingenuous to clearly use a word in an insulting manner then act all shocked that the person it is aimed at is insulted.

[edhopper]

71. Well

Justin's simple response that he doesn't believe in magic, rather than say, I don't engage in magical thinking, is contrary to many of his previous statements in which he said he believed that many of the events in the Bible, that could only be seen as magic, actually occurred.
We hashed it out.
The rest he can take up with the OP if he wishes.

[cbayer]

73. I think we are talking around each other.

You are using magic in a particular way. He is hearing it in a particular way. Whether it is your intention or not, he has explained that he finds it insulting.

Have you hashed it out, or does he still find the term insulting? Is there not a better term?

He believes that god acts in ways that humans do not and can not understand. I personally find the term supernatural to be pretty benign.

[edhopper]

75. we hashed it out.

I understand why he objected to the term. He believes in what I (and most) would call magic, but he prefers different terms for it. It has connotations for him that isn't intrinsic in the word.
Much ado in the end.

[cbayer]

78. Much ado is accurate in my opinion.

I tend to be of the mindset that if a word is considered offensive by someone, I will try to avoid using it (unless, of course, it is my intention to offend).

But others have much more of a "they just need to get over it" attitude.

[eomer]

239. The definition of magic being used here is not the one involving deception by a magician.

Last edited Fri Jul 4, 2014, 08:45 AM - Edit history (1)

It's the other one that involves the ability to do something impossible or supernatual. See ed hopper #8.

Some theists, including hrmjustin, want to say that miracles are possible and are "God at work". (Or more accurately they say they are impossible/possible - in my opinion it is nothing more than muddled thinking.)

Other, including me, want to say that miracles are impossible and would be "magic".

I don't see how my statement that miracles would be "magic" is any more insulting to hmrjustin than his saying they are "God at work" is insulting to me. We're each just stating how we view the idea of miracles.

I am, I suppose, "insulted" by the ideas of miracles and God if that's how we're going to describe hrmjustin's feelings. Knowing that will you now defend me from such "insults"? (Scare quotes intentional.) To do so you will need to ask people to refrain from saying that "miracles" are "God at work".

[cbayer]

240. How it is being used is certainly part of the issue, but

without clarification of the definition, I don't think it's surprising that someone might take offense.

The fact is that some people, and in particular anti-theists, use words to mock and denigrate religious beliefs frequently. In fact, saying that someone that believes that there is a god that works in supernatural ways is simply exhibiting "muddled thinking" would be a rather good example of just that.

Whether you think it is insult or meant it to be insulting or think justin should feel insulted is really not the issue. The issue is that he did feel insulted and it might be important to understand why that is.

I don't see why someone else's belief in miracles or god could be insulting to you. If they were to say that you were just too unenlightened to recognize it, that might be insulting. If they said that were to say that those acts were obvious to all but the blind or deluded, you might find that quite insulting.

I'm not asking that you refrain from using any words, just that you consider trying to understand why someone might be offended and whether that is your intent or not.

[eomer]

241. Whether you think it is insult or meant it to be insulting or think [eomer] should feel insulted...

is really not the issue. The issue is that he did feel insulted and it might be important to understand why that is.

In other words, if we're going to go down this path, let's be even-handed about it. The truth is that many people experience a great deal of discomfort when they hear the kinds of things that hrmjustin routinely says. I'm one of them. For me the reasons are complex and somewhat personal.

[cbayer]

243. I'm fine with being even handed about it.

If people feel discomfort, I fully support them saying so and then explaining why.

If you feel discomfort in someone expressing their personal views or beliefs, I think you should explain why. If it is because of some terminology they are using, then certainly they might consider using different language.

However, if you just feel uncomfortable around believers, as some feel uncomfortable around GLBT people or black people, etc, that's quite a different and personal thing and perhaps something you should personally explore.

And if it's the case that you feel this discomfort, why do you hang around a group where you are sure to run into them? One would hope that you might do this in order to get more comfortable and become more tolerant, but somehow I don't think that is the case.

[eomer]

244. Right, and if you feel the need to constantly chide people about how they say things here

then why do you hang around?

The reasons for me are that while the things hrmjustin says do in fact cause me discomfort, I find it more important that people be able to express their views. In other words, I don't really want to do what you regularly do but make it even-handed. What I would actually want is to limit the speech policing to things that really are offensive rather than things like this that are a stretch. If you're going to persist in it then I suggest that you back it off a bit and also that you consider that there are two sides that you ought to consider.

[cbayer]

245. I don't feel the need to constantly chide people, but I do feel the need

to confront intolerance, prejudice and, in particular, anti-theism. When there is terminology used that I find portrays those things, I am likely to say something about it. I think it's an ugly side of things and of some parts of the democratic and liberal/progressive community in particular. It's divisive and keeps us from working together, and I think that's a problem.

One way to address that is to listen when people say they are offended and consider saying things in a way that is less inflammatory. If you think that is "speech policing", so be it. If you do not recognize that there is language purposefully used to belittle others, then you don't recognize it and no amount of pointing it out is likely to change that.

I'm not going to back off but I am quite willing to consider that there are two sides. I've yet to really hear from you what causes you discomfort. Is it just the mere existence of believers expressing their beliefs or is it something that could be addressed and changed?

[eomer]

246. Is it the mere existence of non-believers expressing their beliefs that miracles are magic...

that causes discomfort?

The word "magic" says exactly how I feel about miracles. It conveys an attitude that there is no way that miracles actually occur, that "magical" things are really unthinkable, to me.

Someone else saying that miracles are "God at work" has just as much attitude in the other direction. It says that miracles surely do occur and they are definitely caused by God.

There's no difference. Both things have an attitude that this is how things are. Neither one of them has anything to do with belittling people - they are both a discussion of ideas, not a discussion about people.

[cbayer]

247. No, of course its not the mere existence.

It is when the term is used to belittle, mock or denigrate the beliefs of others. Surely you can see the difference.

And if it weren't the speakers intention to do any of those things, it would seem the issue would be quickly and painlessly resolved.

If you mean it in some innocuous way that is not a put down or an attempt to ridicule, I think you just need to clarify that.

I'm afraid that we are talking around each other. Someone expressing their views does not necessarily denigrate your own. That is the difference. If you feel that your views or beliefs are being denigrated, then say so and hash it out with the person. Either they meant to do that or they may reconsider the way they present themselves. If they meant to do that, then you certainly have the right to be offended because offense was intended.

[eomer]

248. Maybe we need to be more specific.

The OP is the first to use the term and I don't see anything there that is belittling or mocking any person.

Then edhopper uses the term and I don't think he does either.

The comments by brettongarcia are a different matter and weren't what I was referring to. I've been talking about using the term "magic" as applied to ideas like miracles and such. brettongarcia is making statements about hrmjustin and I don't associate myself with what he's said. I haven't read or considered those comments much and am not saying that they are okay.

[cbayer]

249. The second instance of it being used was hrmjustin objecting to it

by saying that he didn't believe in magic.

A conversation ensued in which I think some detente was reached. I chimed in at some point because I think the word can be used in a pejorative and offensive way.

It all comes down to intent. If no offense is meant, then it is a pretty simple situation to rectify.

But sometimes it is, as you can see.

The same discussion happened around the use of the work delusional. While some use it in a colloquial way not meant to be offensive, others use it specifically to offend.

The question then becomes whether it would make more sense to choose words that more clearly showed intent?

This has probably become a case of beating a dead horse, but I think we could all benefit from a increased level of sensitivity towards each other, and that most certainly includes me.

[eomer]

253. I think the larger context of how certain language is used is important.

When people use the word "magic" this way, they do mean, in my opinion, for the word to have a certain bite to it. But I think they are justified by the larger context of the way other words are used. Words like "supernatural", "God", and "miracle" are used to condition people into accepting what they otherwise wouldn't. Calling these things "magic" is an attempt at counteracting that conditioning. It is an attempt to get people to accept science and to not abandon science at the edges, between the cracks, or in times of stress.

And the bite of "magic" is aimed at ideas not at people. Many of us here agree that ridiculing an idea is fair game while ridiculing a person is not.

[cbayer]

254. I think that's a valid argument and I think I better understand what you are saying.

Counteracting the language that might be used to make religious ideas appear to be something other than supernatural makes sense, because I agree that they are by their very nature not explained by science.

OTOH, I reject the idea that this is a battle between religion and science in which one must win. Emphasizing the non-scientific basis of religion does not mean that one necessarily abandons it in favor of science. I would agree that when they factually contradict each other, science wins.

But I also think that the great bulk of religion does not contradict science and exists in a place where science never comes into play.

Sometimes the distinction between ridiculing an idea and a person is not all that clear. I think this is a card that is often pulled out to provide some cover for what is, in fact, a personal attack.

If I say that atheism is due to a mental rigidity so severe that it prohibits the ability to see god (something I do not believe, btw), and compare this state to complete soullessness, am I not criticizing the idea and those that have that idea?

[skepticscott]

30. If a "natural law" can be broken

then it was never a "law" to begin with. So there goes your problem in a more rational way.

The theological "answer" is just a contrivance and a convenience (as are all theological "answers&quot , with no actual evidence to back it up. Just a need for "god" to be the way some people need him
to be.

[rug]

46. That reminds me of a born again Christian caught in a crack house.

He was never born again to begin with.

Lame,

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

77. That's the way science works.

If something can be shown to be untrue, it's untrue. It doesn't matter if people thought it was true for 5 minutes of a thousand years, if proof exists that the 'law' was wrong, then it was always wrong, and people were simply mistaken because they didn't have enough evidence to realize it was wrong.

So yeah, if a 'natural law' can be broken, then it wasn't actually a 'natural law'.

[rug]

205. And when the curvature of space and time is supplanted, as it supplanted what was before, there will

be those who say it was not a natural law.

"Natural law" is actually a piss-poor way of describing reality.

[AtheistCrusader]

56. That's a lot of extra syllables .

Why is the distinction important?

[hrmjustin]

101. Call it whatever you like.

[Brettongarcia]

85. Do you believe that Jesus made real bread appear out of thin air?

That sounds a lot like a stage magician; claiming to make a rabbit appear in an empty hat.

To insist that they are different, is just a common way of playing word-twisting semantic games.

The Bible by the way, told us that various "Magi" - Persian for "wise men" or "magicians" - attended the birth of Jesus. And gave him "gifts."

To claim that such things are just metaphors for spiritual things, also twists words around. And partially acknowledges that the Bible is not, strictly or simply, true.

[enki23]

20. There's a lot there, and I don't have a lot I feel it's worth saying about most of it.

But that image... the problem with fundies isn't that they're angry at people. It's that their stupid beliefs make them angry for stupid reasons at people who it's stupid to be angry at. Anger isn't the problem. Nor is intolerance. I'm angry and intolerant as hell toward some people. I hate Illinois Nazis. I also hate many Republicans. That doesn't make me the same as them outside the very silliest of Hollywood dreck.

[freshwest]

31. S'okay, I'll get out of this thread.

Last edited Tue Jul 1, 2014, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

[enki23]

34. Why?

.

[freshwest]

37. I'm obviously not getting what this is about now, so others can take my place and do better.

[Warren Stupidity]

29. The negative impact of religiosity and religious institutions on society is not an ad hominem

argument against religion, it is an evidence based reasonable argument about why we should discourage religiosity and disempower religious institutions. We can debate the facts, perhaps in aggregate religion is a positive influence. We can debate the conclusion, perhaps even if religion is tearing societies apart and dragging us back toward a pre-enlightenment social structure, there are other compelling reasons to not take action.

[enki23]

36. Oh, I suppose. But that's an argument from consequences.

Not that I'm saying the consequences aren't important, or worth argument. They are. And you're right. But only sort of. Those things are only worth arguing about *after* we've already thrown in the towel on the "is it true?" thing. I was talking about the "true" thing. Because that always has to come first, even if it usually fruitless. Consequences of a true thing are what they are. Consequences that arise from freely choosing among untrue things is... well, it's just too god damned crazy that we need to go there at all.

Consequences of believing untrue things are bad first because believing untrue things causes people to make stupid decisions in general. It's only a secondary argument when we're reduced to arguing about the particular damage caused by a particular set of untrue beliefs. Sure, we're reduced to that all the time. But that's precisely the problem.

Because they can just claim it's actually the first argument. The consequences simply are what they are if what they believe is true.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. I don't consider the "is it true" debate worthwhile. Show me a god and I'll reconsider.

Until then it is debating the veracity of a work of fiction.

[enki23]

51. Well, it's kind of important when other people think it is.

Because, if the mainstream Christians (for instance) are right, most of the world is fucked for eternity, which is a pretty god damned (pun intended) bad outcome for us. In that case, we'd all be better off having been forced to sincerely convert by the epistemic power of combustion and the threats thereof. So, I respectfully disagree. I think it matters whether it's true or not.

Though I have a pretty damned high confidence that it isn't. So it mostly, practically, just matters to me whether *they think* it's true or not. If they really believe it, talk of consequences doesn't seem to faze them much. That said, using consequences to argue against religion is okay with me, when it works. But it is sort of underhanded.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. I'm not losing sleep over the veracity of ancient myths.

The negative impact of religion on society is a real thing.

[rug]

41. If you can't distinguish god from chocolate I foresee a tedious conversation.

[liberalmuse]

48. Religion is the worst thing...

to ever happen to mankind. It's ruined more lives than cancer and all diseases combined, and is the root cause of almost every single war that has ever happened. It's a disease stemming from the ego mind. You can't even put "logic" and "religion" in the same sentence, because never the twain shall meet. Trying to discuss anything in a logical manner with someone who is filtering all of their life experience through religion is a pointless endeavor, and you'd probably get more leeway hitting your head against a brick wall.

[rug]

49. Feel better?

[hrmjustin]

50. Well I guess there is no Christmas card coming.

[okasha]

54. Daaayyyuuum.

Where'd you get that foot-wide brush? It'd be great for gesso.

[cbayer]

58. I have met very few religious people that are as rigid and dogmatic as this post.

The absolutism and over the top hyperbole would give even the most fundamental of fundamentalists a real run for their money.

But I guess you have found the way, the truth and the light, lol.

Now, what do you suppose would happen if I wrote something even remotely similar to this about atheists? And the comparison is valid, because pretty much everything you have written here is false and pulled out of thin air.

[Notafraidtoo]

229. It's just another tool for ruthless people.

With out religion they would find something else to divide us over to take advantage, racism comes to mind just something to be cultivated for those that need to use others for their own gain. I won't argue religion is the best of tools for such greed and evils, but in the end it's the fault of the rubes for being pawns in evil mens games. A shark is going to be a shark, but its fools who listen to the shark to come into the water.

[cbayer]

57. It's only an ad hominem argument if you make it so.

If you start from the assumption that the person you are talking to is somehow faulty for believing in the first place, then it's going to be an ad hominem, isn't it. If you start from the premise that the person holding the belief is mentally unstable or ill, then it's definitely going to be an ad hominem argument.

You are right, you can't argue against someone's beliefs unless you have actual evidence to disprove it. Which, in the case of religion, you most certainly do not.

And that is what an ad hominem is…. claiming that the person holding the beliefs is inadequate or overruled when you, in fact, have no standing to make that claim.

It is truly impossible to make any argument against religion that doe not ultimately depends on taking the position that you know something to be untrue that you really don't know.

You are right, there is a big difference between saying chocolate exists and Jesus exists and you seem to believe that that you hold the key to that difference.

But you don't and it is merely arrogance to take the position that it is some fault of the believer that makes those things different.

All in all, this argument is specious at the very least, though I am sure it will have fans.

[enki23]

59. Do I actually need to point you to the definition of "ad hominem?"

As for the rest... dear lord, I just don't know what to say. You clearly didn't actually read what I wrote, or understand it, or both.

Here's your options, as I see them:

1) Deciding which supernatural beliefs to hold can be (at least theoretically) decided solely based on objective external evidence. In that case, hey. I'm wrong.

2) Deciding which supernatural beliefs to hold cannot be based on objective external evidence. In this case, we're left with your internal evidence. Which leaves us arguing that your internal evidence isn't true. Which is an ad hominem argument. A completely valid ad hominem argument. Your argument is wrong because I have no reason whatsoever to believe you are reliable in that way, and you have no external way to convince me otherwise. If you did, we'd be under the first condition rather than the second.

But I said all that already.

Every goddamned argument with a religious person always comes round, explicitly or implicitly, to this: "I just know this shit." No, you don't. I'm denying your ability to know things that way. Yes, that's an argument "against the man". Because religious arguments are always, always, always based on the special, invisible perspicacity of the religious man. That's what we atheists do. We deny your magic powers. Just like people of every other religion, save this: we deny our own as well. Nonbelievers are the only people unreservedly do *not* claim that particular power. We might be arrogant about our reasoning. But you can check that. We aren't arrogant about our magic. We just won't let you have yours.

[cbayer]

60. No, you actually do not need to do that.

But implying that I am too stupid to know how to do that could be considered an ad hominem, to say nothing of your statements indicating that you think I am either lazy or intellectually incapable of understanding the drivel that you posted here.

Call it whatever you want. I think the whole logical fallacy argument is a logical fallacy, but that's just me.

But let's just keep it simple and say that you want to be able to insult and demean religious believers and have it be their fault that they feel insulted and demeaned.

Even if that satisfies some logical argument in your head, it doesn't make it any more than what it obviously is.

[enki23]

61. I didn't assume you didn't understand it. I observed that you didn't understand it.

And what is this "logical fallacy" you're talking about? You never demonstrated any such thing. So far as I can tell, you didn't even try. You said it was "specious," but that just means that it's wrong even if it looks right. Nowhere did you actually come close to demonstrating what was wrong about what I said. In fact, you seemed to agree with me, before you disagreed with me.

When people claim to have the ability to know what is true without reference to sufficient material evidence, they're claiming a special power. I deny that they, you, have that power. That's "ad hominem" at least in a sense. It just happens to be justified.

[cbayer]

62. No, you observed that I did not agree with you, not

that I did not understand.

I am obviously not of the caliber you wish for someone to be in order to have this discussion with you. I don't even try, don't come close to demonstrating my point and contradict myself.

I think I do agree with you. It is impossible for you to have a discussion about religion without resorting to ad hominems. Since I claim no special power at all, your ad hominem is far from justified.

Again, I think the bottom line here is that you want to be able to insult religious believers and make it their fault that they are insulted.

However, it appears that no one is really taking the bait.

[Act_of_Reparation]

72. If I may mediate here...

There is a difference between an ad hominem argument and an ad hominem fallacy.

A fallacious ad hominem disregards an argument and instead focuses on the personal characteristics of the person making it. This needn't even be an insult; "Don't trust my opponent; he has blue eyes!" is just as fallacious as "Don't trust my opponent; he's a dick!". If, however, your opponent's argument is necessarily reliant upon his or her personal characteristics, then it is absolutely appropriate and justified to call those characteristics into question. If "the argument" has become "the man", it becomes necessary to address "the man" in order to counter "the argument".

As an example, there was a discussion here where a poster presented evidence that the American Catholic Church actually apportions very little of its total expenditures towards charitable causes. Another poster responded along the lines of, "I used to work at a Catholic charity. I call bullshit on this."

How are you supposed to continue the discussion without necessarily addressing the self-proclaimed expertise of your opponent? You can't. You have no choice but to accept or reject it. In either case, you are making an ad hominem argument, but in neither case is it fallacious because your opponent made the argument about themselves.

[cbayer]

74. So what is it when someone distorts or misrepresents what another is doing or saying,

then uses that to attack their position?

When the OP states that religious people claim to magically know things that are not knowable, he is painting those people with a characteristic that is not only inaccurate, but very rarely if ever seen here. What most believers say is that they believe and that that belief is based on faith.

If one understands that, then his whole argument falls apart.

At any rate, I think he is merely trying to find a way to insult believers and then make them responsible for feeling insulted.

Other posts of his indicated that he has a very us vs. them way of looking at the whole thing, so it's not surprising that he would use this technique.

I am sure there is a named logical fallacy in there somewhere.

[Act_of_Reparation]

81. That would be a Straw Man

1. Person 1 makes claim X.

2. Person 2 argues against claim Y, being superficially similar to claim X, as if it were Person 1's position.

[cbayer]

82. Ok, thanks for that.

One of the problems I have with these "logical fallacies" is that they are often used as a way of completely dismissing someone's opinion or POV. Once someone pins a logical fallacy accusation on another's post, it then seems ok for everyone to just disregard it.

IMO, that in itself is some kind of logical fallacy, but I don't know which it would be. I sometimes look at the chart and think that pretty much every post I read here could have one of these labels pinned to it.

[Act_of_Reparation]

87. If an argument is fallacious, you should disregard it

At its simplest, a fallacy is an argument whose premises do not support its conclusion. In other words, these arguments don't make sense. If an argument is indeed fallacious, the only responsible thing to do is throw it out the window and start over.

The problem is sometimes people call arguments "fallacious" when they are not. This isn't intentional; some fallacies are not simple to understand, or are strangely named (people routinely misunderstand what "begging the question" means, for example). The best way to counter these claims when they are made is to familiarize yourself with both logical syllogisms (building blocks of logical arguments) and logical fallacies (what happens when syllogisms aren't used correctly).

As far as philosophy goes, these topics aren't too dense. I picked up most of them in my high school philosophy class. So, they can make for light reading if you have the time.

[cbayer]

89. I did take some philosophy and logic courses in college, and while I enjoyed both,

I found them to mostly be fun games without any conclusions.

Harder sciences were much more appealing to me.

But going back to some of it might prove interesting at this time in my life.

[AtheistCrusader]

94. I'm pretty sure putting Logical Fallacies in scare quotes is a logical fallacy all its own.

[cbayer]

113. Probably true.

What about putting "scare quotes" in scare quotes?

Actually I think using the term "scare quotes" with or without scare quotes is probably a logical fallacy all its own.

[AtheistCrusader]

117. Scare quotes is a real thing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scare+quotes?s=t

[cbayer]

118. Yes, and I was using them precisely for the reason they are called that in the definition.

Why would that be a problem.

Is using "scare quotes" a "logical fallacy" that would allow one to completely dismiss my point?

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Your use cast doubt on whether the term is real.

"quotation marks placed around a word or phrase to indicate that it should not be taken literally or automatically accepted as true"

If someone is engaged in a logical fallacy, and it is pointed out, "a way of completely dismissing someone's opinion or POV. Once someone pins a logical fallacy accusation on another's post, it then seems ok for everyone to just disregard it." disregarding that opinion/POV is entirely the correct thing to do. Because it's invalid.

[cbayer]

134. You know...

bolding something is a lot like PUTTING SOMETHING IN ALL CAPS.

Do you think that you won't be heard if you don't do these things?

Someone labeling someone's POV or argument as a logical fallacy does not make it so. It's all a word game that is used when one is on a crusade to "win" (there are those square quotes again!) a debate as opposed to really learning something from the other person.

You labeling my POV as invalid does not mean anything other than that is our POV.

[AtheistCrusader]

140. Get off my nuts.

You bitch about all caps, as if it's yelling. You bitch about bold as if it's yelling. How in the hell am I supposed to add emphasis if I'm not allowed to ADD EMPHASIS.

[cbayer]

225. OMG! I am not now and hope never to be anywhere near your nuts.

[AtheistCrusader]

230. It is a figure of speech. Substitute 'Get off my ass' if that is more amenable.

[Warren Stupidity]

232. The Victim Card Gambit has been played.

Somehow you have now victimized cbayer. BAD ATHEIST BAD!

[rug]

233. !

[Jim__]

96. Here's a video of a panel on critical thinking that absolutely agrees with what you're saying.

The panel took place at the 2013 FtBConscience meeting.

IIRC, the entire video is worth watching. But from about 18:00 to 26:00 into the video they talk about fallacy naming and recognize that it's a bad way to argue. One of the panelists names the Steelman as a counter to the Strawman - her point being that you should take your opponents weak and possibly fallacious argument and respond to the strongest version of the argument that you can think of.

[cbayer]

228. Thanks for this.

I am not able to watch it right now, but will mark it for later. Much appreciated.

[trotsky]

115. Yeah, kind of like how you choose to use the term "anti-theist."

Brand someone an "anti-theist" (according to your definition), and then it's OK to disregard it.

You're so critical of people dismissing other points of view, but you do it all the time. No wonder you struggle to be taken seriously.

[Jim__]

97. There is no need to use an ad hominem to refute the "argument" that you cited.

How are you supposed to continue the discussion without necessarily addressing the self-proclaimed expertise of your opponent? You can't. You have no choice but to accept or reject it. In either case, you are making an ad hominem argument, but in neither case is it fallacious because your opponent made the argument about themselves.

It is valid to point out that a person doing a simple job within a large complex organization does not necessarily have expertise about the entire organization. Statistical evidence about a facet of the organization is not over-ridden by claims of personal experience unless those claims directly refute the evidence presented. That is not an ad hominem argument.

[uriel1972]

76. I have to agree...

Which is why I don't post here much. I think it's why atheists cop so much flak. By not agreeing with the very basis of religion we are saying that... well... believers are a bit foolish at the least.

Oh and if you don't have evidence you are probably peddling fairy tales.

[cbayer]

79. Gee I can't imagine why you "cop so much flak"?

Might it have to do with your calling those that see and experience things different foolish and calling their beliefs fairy tales?

[JNelson6563]

83. The only honest answer a believer can offer on faith is

"I believe because I want to.". That is honest and I can respect that.

There is no proof and trying to present ideas on faith as proof is dishonest and worthy of no respect at all.

Julie

[cbayer]

91. I also think the best honest answer a non-believer can offer is often similar -

I don't believe because I don't want to.

I think taking a definitive stance either way is dishonest and agree that it is not worthy of respect at all.

OTOH, I am coming to believe that some, if not many, really don't make a choice but that their belief or lack of belief is just a part of who they are… something they can not change.

[JNelson6563]

93. Ok, do you really not get how it works?

I thought you were highly educated. To assert something exists puts the burden of proof on the one making an assertion. For instance if someone tells me there is a god, my not believing the claim without proof does not mean I need to prove the claim untrue.

Your post reminds me of those who claim the Republicans and Democrats are equally at fault for the mess in Washington. That, of course, is nonsense.

As to whether all make a cognizant choice on faith, I think we tend to be where we need to be on the issue of faith, emotionally speaking.

Julie

[cbayer]

110. No, as I have indicated previously, despite my high level of education, I am really slow

and have trouble understanding things that highly erudite individuals such as yourself present in such simple terms that even your average chimpanzee could probably get. My deep apologies and sympathy for how difficult and frustrating these things must be for you.

You don't have to prove anything and neither does anyone else. A belief based on faith requires no proof or disproof. It just is.

I am so glad that you equate my position with those that hold Dems and Repubs equally responsible. That would be sort of like calling me a troll or something. That is, of course, utter nonsense.

As to you last comment. I am inferring from it that you see those who choose atheism as some how more emotionally mature. Am I reading that correctly? That is truly laughable, as there is clearly no correlation between faith and maturity, and that is blatantly obvious just by reading this and the related "safe haven" groups.

[AtheistCrusader]

120. "A belief based on faith requires no proof or disproof. It just is."

Maybe to the person that holds that belief, but if said person wants it to be recognized and respected by others, then no, the bar of what is 'required' rises.

[cbayer]

132. Hardly. Being recognized and respected by others means that you anticipate that those others

will accept you for who you are. Most people don't expect that others will recognize, respect or adopt their beliefs, just their person. There is no bar.

And what's with the "scare quotes" around required???

[AtheistCrusader]

141. Their beliefs are not their person.

Separate entities.

[AtheistCrusader]

95. No, it's 'I don't believe because THERE ISN'T ANY FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR IT'

Good fuckin' grief.

[cbayer]

112. I guess if you confine yourself to only believing things that THERE IS FUCKING EVIDENCE FOR,

your set of beliefs is going to be pretty constricted and incredibly boring.

And please stop screaming profanities at me. It's very unbecoming.

[AtheistCrusader]

119. My 'beliefs' are a bit different.

Not boring at all. For instance, when I get on a plane, I believe that the plane will actually take off, fly through the air, and arrive at it's destination. I have 'faith' that the plane was appropriately designed, tested, and verified to be capable of that task, that it has been maintained properly, that the pilots are adequately trained, ground control is capable and alert, that the runway is smooth, etc.

I Believe that that because I know something about the process from end to end. Any part of that process can be verified, tested, observed. If I didn't know anything at all about any of it, I might be a lot more skeptical about powered flight. I am not. But I also salt that with the realization that something could go wrong, and that flight that I believe will go off without a hitch, might end in a fireball of death and destruction. I accept the odds.

If that sounds boring to you, well. Ok. I guess.


As for unbecoming, so is misrepresenting someone's position.

[trotsky]

124. "As for unbecoming, so is misrepresenting someone's position."

You're forgetting something: IOKIYAB.

[phil89]

192. Atheism is a rejection of a claim

not a statement of disbelief. I don't not-believe in god because I choose not to. I don't not-believe in Zeuss because I choose not to. I simply see no evidence for the claims. Until someone can present evidence for a god, it makes no sense to accept the claim. I can be convinced with evidence though.

[cbayer]

226. That's fine if you leave it at that.

It is when people begin to challenge those that believe that it goes from a passive stance of atheism to a more active stance of non-believe.

Whether one believes or not makes no difference to me. Whether one accepts that others have a different POV is when it begins to matter.

[skepticscott]

238. What really matters is when someone is intellectually mature enough

to acknowledge that not all points of view have equal validity and equal support of evidence.

You, on the other hand, love to say "well, that's just your POV" in an attempt to dismiss something you have no logical or factual counter to, without ever considering how well that "point of view" is supported compared to others. And to say "well, that's my POV", as if that lends anything said under that banner some kind of automatic credence.

It's all about evidence, not bare assertions, cbayer. A simple fact of rational and critical thinking that you have yet you grasp.

[phil89]

255. Very true. You said

it better than I could. And I think people are right to be offended and challenge claims when they are threatened with hell if they don't believe mythology is true.

[skepticscott]

235. Why would you put such crap in other people's mouth?

That tops even your usual level of intellectual dishonesty. Maybe that's what you toss around the dinner table, but it's not how rational people approach things.

Did you even consider the far more accurate statement "I don't believe in X because there is no convincing evidence that it exists"? And do you recognize that it's not a definitive and absolute statement, despite your bullshit claim?

[Brettongarcia]

90. If all arguments are ad hominem; arguments by human beings against others?

Then how do we break out of this circle of apparently hopeless subjectivity in all of us? (As Poststructuralism noted).

The best answer seems to be ... which arguments by human beings, seem verified (or contradicted) or triangulated, by our best guess at something outside apparent human agency. By some obvious - and very visible, manifest - force apparently outside of our selves. To wit: nature.

Strictly speaking to be sure, our perception of any extra-human agency is just our human perception. However, through repeated trials, we can come to see that there are things "out there" that we had not thought of before; that we had not found in our selves earlier. Suggesting an extra-personal reality. While rather than an invisible God, the most dramatic, visible, and repeated extra-human agency seems to be Nature.

Those who reject this, reject Science.

[djean111]

129. As an atheist, I quite honestly believe it a ridiculous waste of time for either side to

argue about religion. Neither side can prove their argument. In layman's terms, WTF is the point?
If a theist feels attacked just knowing that I don't believe in a god or whatever - suck it up, you are practicing self-flagellation or inventing persecution or something. And some theists are OFFENDED by atheists - must be insecure about their own beliefs, IMO.

My sister used to say she felt sorry for me because I refused to "accept the truth" and acknowledge that religion is the truth. That was years ago, when she was a quite rabid converted Mormon.
We both started out as having been indoctrinated as Episcopalians when children.
She now is dismissive of any organised religion and believes there is an all-pervading spirit, but not any sort of vindictive demanding god or whatever, and has gone from quoting stories from her bible to me as they were current news to saying, well, that book has been rewritten to bend it to whatever power trip was going on, so not exactly believable.
She used to blandly assert that anything good that I did was only because her god had put the capability in my heart. Aaaaargh. I didn't care if she was religious, I just wanted freedom from religion.

Do people really honestly feel arguing about the existence of some sort of supreme being(s) is even sane? Cannot be proved either way. But getting feelings hurt when someone says there is no god is kinda pathetic, and labeling non-belief as an ad hominem attack seems a bit pitiful to me.

IMO, etc. None of this argument stuff is in any way factual, just how we humans try to process life as we see it.

[trotsky]

131. I really wish we were at a point in society where it didn't matter.

But we just had 5 members of the highest court of the land make policy affecting millions of women because of what they think their god wants.

And we have people who post on DU who say that religion and religious faith are just "other ways of knowing" that are just as valid as reason or scientific inquiry.

So it does matter, I think. But I'm with you on the "getting feelings hurt when someone says there is no god" thing.

[phil89]

193. Atheism has no argument to prove.

It makes no claims.

[skepticscott]

199. Sorry, we've heard that tired old saw over and over

"You can't PROVE god doesn't exist, so there's no point discussing it". Well, hogwash. You can't PROVE anything to an absolute, 100% certainty, so why the fuck do we discuss any of the things we do? Why does this board even exist? We can't PROVE that conservatives are wrong, so why bother trying?

[djean111]

224. You honestly think there is a point in discussing the existence of a god with someone who does not

believe there is a god?
What, exactly, would be the point?
Oh, and Conservatives being wrong - there is no proof? About the harm their policies do? How very existential.
There is not one iota of proof that a god exists.
What, exactly, would be the argument that a god does exist? Because you think so? Not very compelling, sorry.
And - I am actually saying that my non-belief does not rule out that there may very well BE a god - I just do not think so, and millennia of people writing about religion and doing things in the name of religion does not make it so.
What, exactly, would be your argument? You believe, I do not believe. And there is no proff either way.
To put that on the level of, say, Conservatives cutting food stamps seems childish.

Tired old saw? There is nothing else to say, you know.

[cbayer]

227. I tend to agree with you that to argue about the existence or non-existence of a god is

pretty much a ridiculous waste of time.

And I also agree that pushing one's beliefs or lack of beliefs down someone's throat is poor form and should be avoided.

But I fail to see how you make the distinction between what your sister did and what you are doing. She said things to you that were offensive and you just wanted the freedom to not be harassed by that. OTOH, you seem to think it's ok to call believers pathetic and pitiful if they perhaps want the same thing - that is to just be left alone with their beliefs.

While there may be some believers that do somehow feel attacked by your mere lack of belief, I would suggest that most believers feel offended when they are actually being attacked.

[ZombieHorde]

136. A personal attack is not necessarily an ad hominem attack.

An argument uses the ad hominem fallacy when it uses a personal attack to attack the argument. "You're wrong because you're a poopy head."

[enki23]

237. Agreed. This post gets at another issue, though.

Ad hominem, as an informal fallacy, doesn't necessarily mean you're calling somebody names. It just means you're claiming an argument might be wrong because the arguer is likely to make wrong arguments. Absolutely.

The thing is, religious folks here (and, fairly, everywhere) like to cry "ad hominem." But to their position, everything is ad hominem. If you go all post-whatever/solipsist, that might to apply to all of us and all our arguments. But it probably doesn't. Which, so long as you don't take a (frankly, silly) extreme position regarding human experience and our ability to share parts of it, makes religion... maybe not unique, but "special" to argue against.

[ladjf]

231. This is a non-sense post based on circular logic. nt

[enki23]

236. This is a reply to your non-sense [sic] post based on circular logic. nt

I'm not sure what the point of that game is, but I can play along I suppose.

[Iggo]

251. LOL.

Better than coffee.

Thanks.

[Tikki]

252. I know nothing of religion.

Tikki