RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist?

RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 4:55:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you aware of the details of Newton's life? What more could he have accomplished if he hadn't poisoned his brain and body with mercury pursuing alchemy? What more could he have discovered if he didn't spend the last decades of his life writing religious tracts? Newton's supernatural beliefs certainly reduced the amount of actual science he did. And Einstein's spiritual beliefs pushed him to work harder. Also, in Newton's time, alchemy was considered a science and knowledge of herbs was considered supernatural. Just to put things in perspective, imagine what people in the year 2600 will have to say about relativity and superstring theory. Wait until "alchemy" has been accomplished, which, with a large enough accelerator it will be. Then we can watch PA's horde of gold really pay off.

Elisabella -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 4:59:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Wait until "alchemy" has been accomplished, which, with a large enough accelerator it will be. Then we can watch PA's horde of gold really pay off. Hehehe that's actually a good point - just because Newton didn't know how to do it doesn't mean it will never be done.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 1:14:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~FR Everything scientific begins with a belief/faith. Sometimes that belief/faith is provern, sometimes its disproven, both sometimes leading to a new discovery. Think... the discovery of bacteria or the use of any medication. The belief or faith must be present before the science begins to seek the answers. Beg to differ tazzy. Everything scientific begins with observation, question and wonder. The question is then rephrased into a testable statement - that is an hypothesis. Usually the null hypothesis is tested first. That is the antithesis of the hyposthesis, or more simply the more doubtful cause and effect. Or "The statistical hypothesis that states that there are no differences between observed and expected data." If the null hypothesis is shown to be unlikely by trials and obsevations (whatever the design) then the favored hypothesis has more credence. I think I have that right. It has been a while since ... lol! The discovery of bacteria came on the shoulders of the construction of the telescope/microscope lens systems and as you likely know given your medical knowledge there is a lot of trial and error in the process of developing medications. A Lot!! I hope that all makes sense. I am a little rusty on scientific method anymore. No need to beg, vincent. [:D] I did mean faith in the small "f" sense, since people wish to be so specific. As i recall, bateria was discovered as you mentioned, in pond water, by a man who ground glasses. He saw them, drew them, and sent the information to a London Society. But the link between bacetria and disease was not believed for a couple of centuries after that. If this name rings a bell... Ignaz Semmelweis ... then you will understand what i am getting at. He didnt know what caused child bed fever, only that midwives had a lower incidence than physicians. The only difference between deliveries that he could see was hand washing. This was an observation on his part, one he tried to get the other Physicians at the time to implement. They, of course, thought he was nuts. He lost a few jobs over this issue. He had faith based upon his observations without any clinical data to back him up that hand washing would lead to a decrease in child bed fever. A belief that later became a fact. Something no physician would think of not doing in our time... the hand washing. He had a hunch, a belief. He followed the trail, discovered the difference and went with it. But it all started with a problem and a belief. And, no vincent, no ass reaming over this one. [:D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 1:21:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl He had faith based upon his observations without any clinical data to back him up that hand washing would lead to a decrease in child bed fever. A belief that later became a fact. No, he had a theory based upon his observations, a theory that was later proven. Faith has zero to do with it, capitalized or not.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 1:32:54 AM)
Definition of theory http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/theory the·o·ry (th-r, thîr) KEY NOUN: pl. the·o·ries A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. ~ Since the good Dr was not able to test his "theory", this definition doesnt fit~ The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory. ~ This one doesnt either, for obvious reasons. A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics. ~ Its not math Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory. ~This could fit. A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime. ~ Ah, a belief... this one seems to fit even better. An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. ~ An Assumption... interesting From Miriam 1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another 2 : abstract thought : speculation 3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory> 4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all> 5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light> 6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory Belief seems to have alot to do with theory.

RCdc -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 4:25:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody If nothing else, OPs point has been shown remarkably accurate. There are people here talking about athiests not having flown to the sun, throwing the word faith around all over the shop, arguing about de facto scientific method....if I was new here I'd think they were doing it intentionally for shits n giggles, it is pretty funny. It would be hilarious except for the hypocrisy of it. Of course its pretty hard to be an atheist if you can't get used to hypocritical behaviour by theists. These two statements wouldn't be so funny if it weren't for the hypocrisy of them too.[:D] the.dark.

DCWoody -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 5:32:17 AM)
@Firm, I think I said at the time it was only a minor aside to my main point (god isn't real). Think about it from our point of view:God is a work of fiction, and this is obviously the case, it isn't difficult or complex in any way. All the arguments have been heard (for hundreds if not thousands of years), and they've all ended the same way:no god. How openminded do you think it's reasonable to expect us to be? Would you be openminded in a discussion about vampires, when someone arguing that they were a vampire ignored the 'vampires aren't real' point, argued strongly (although badly) about semantics, claimed you didn't understand them, and (for some reason) started weak but numerous attacks on 'science'? @RCdc, yes, I'm famous for 'strawmaning' others aren't I, an infamous fount of hypocrisy.

tazzygirl -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 5:47:40 AM)
quote: God is a work of fiction, and this is obviously the case, it isn't difficult or complex in any way. All the arguments have been heard (for hundreds if not thousands of years), and they've all ended the same way:no god. We view things differently. I dont have to argue the case of God. In no other field does his presence become more acutely felt than in medicine. Nor would i ever call you stupid, idiotic, juvenile or a slew of other derogatory terms just because you dont see what i do.

Jeffff -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 5:52:44 AM)
"I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". JeffAbulla

Jeffff -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:00:39 AM)
Hindu Quotes: In the beginning Said Uddalaka to Shvetaketu: "In the beginning was only Being, One without a second. Out of himself he brought forth the cosmos And entered into everything in it. There is nothing that does not come from him. Of everything he is the inmost Self. He is the truth; he is the Self supreme. You are that, Shvetaketu; you are that." - Chandogya Upanishad

Moonhead -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen Are you aware of the details of Newton's life? What more could he have accomplished if he hadn't poisoned his brain and body with mercury pursuing alchemy? What more could he have discovered if he didn't spend the last decades of his life writing religious tracts? Newton's supernatural beliefs certainly reduced the amount of actual science he did. And Einstein's spiritual beliefs pushed him to work harder. Also, in Newton's time, alchemy was considered a science and knowledge of herbs was considered supernatural. Just to put things in perspective, imagine what people in the year 2600 will have to say about relativity and superstring theory. Wait until "alchemy" has been accomplished, which, with a large enough accelerator it will be. Then we can watch PA's horde of gold really pay off. It has been done a few times, but in such miniscule quantities for such a huge consumption of electricity that it's pretty pointless. (The exception here, of course, is turning uranium into plutonium in a reactor...)

Jeffff -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:02:28 AM)
When the need is highest, God is nighest” Hebrew Proverb quote

Jeffff -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:03:30 AM)
So... who is right?

DomKen -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:20:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tazzygirl ~ Since the good Dr was not able to test his "theory", this definition doesnt fit~ Actually Dr. Semmelweis did test his theory. He instituted handwashing with bleach amongst the medical students and the medical student run child birth clinic saw an immediate 90% drop in rates of death from childbed fever. Pretty convincing test if you ask me.

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 6:52:22 AM)
quote: He had faith based upon his observations without any clinical data to back him up that hand washing would lead to a decrease in child bed fever. A belief that later became a fact. Something no physician would think of not doing in our time... the hand washing. He had a hunch, a belief. He followed the trail, discovered the difference and went with it. But it all started with a problem and a belief. We agree, tazzy ..... observations and then a hunch expressed as a question... What is different in what doctors do and in what midwives do? Or however you wish to frame it. My objection, and believe me it is only a minor concern expressed here for the fun of participating on these Boards, is that some (not you expressly I don't think) theists try to draw an equivalency between faith as confidence and Faith as Grace and so claim that atheists have a belief. Belief being another loaded term disingenuously used to draw an equivalency. Then they fling the accusation "Ya see, atheism is a religion." It is a bogus position by the theist and disconcerting I would think to the theologians who have built a system premised upon the notion that Faith is a superior form of knowing than is Reason. Wonder why believers are not content with simply presenting Faith as superior when challenged by rude and persistent non-believers.

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 7:08:05 AM)
quote: Belief seems to have alot to do with theory. Not really. Theory is more properly used in science as a synonym for model. Darwin's Theory is a model of how/why life forms change. Einstein's Theory is a model of time/space. Theory/model is an explanation subject to revision if events fail to occur as the explanation would predict. That's why it is laughable to hear someone claim passionately that Darwin's Theory is not proven and so it is just a theory. Theory is often confused with hypothesis. Hypothesis is a simple statement subject to testing. The hypothesis may grow out of predictions assumed from the Theory. They are not the same. But they are both more nuanced then "belief" because they are both based on observations made and tested. Belief is often based upon authority or received wisdom and so, imo, falls far short of theory and hypothesis.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 7:17:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML My objection, and believe me it is only a minor concern expressed here for the fun of participating on these Boards, is that some (not you expressly I don't think) theists try to draw an equivalency between faith as confidence and Faith as Grace and so claim that atheists have a belief. Belief being another loaded term disingenuously used to draw an equivalency. Then they fling the accusation "Ya see, atheism is a religion." It is a bogus position by the theist and disconcerting I would think to the theologians who have built a system premised upon the notion that Faith is a superior form of knowing than is Reason. Wonder why believers are not content with simply presenting Faith as superior when challenged by rude and persistent non-believers. I understand your position vincent, and I'll agree - for the most part - that "atheism" isn't a religion. It is, however, a "belief system". Religion is also a "belief system". Belief systems are somewhat more nebulous than a religion, and it's entirely possible that someone's belief system incorporates both religion and science. Everyone has a "belief system", because it is nothing more than their own internal construct of reality. You can't be human and not have one. I find it humorous that many atheist take umbrage with those statements, especially in trying to make it sound as if their "non-belief" isn't a "belief". There is also a portion of atheists who embrace Human Secularism, which I do think qualifies, or certainly comes close to qualifying as "religious" in terms of belief systems, even if it doesn't have a deity at its core. Firm

LanceHughes -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 7:32:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY <snipped> and I'll agree - for the most part - that "atheism" isn't a religion. It is, however, a "belief system". Religion is also a "belief system". Belief systems are somewhat more nebulous than a religion, and it's entirely possible that someone's belief system incorporates both religion and science. <snipped> I find it humorous that many atheist take umbrage with those statements, especially in trying to make it sound as if their "non-belief" isn't a "belief". <snipped> Firm ::: SIGH ::: As a self-identified (in my profile) Militant Atheist, what I take umbrage at is being "strawmanned" - as the OP asks and as you have just done. I take umbrage at your lack of understanding of the atheist position and in particular that I have no belief system. Here's a little exercise that I love doing in debates - especially with the Christians. Me: Do you believe in Zeus? Them: No. Me: Neither do I. Do you believe in the Egyptian Sun-God, Ra? Them: No. Me: Neither do I. Do you believe in the love Goddess, Venus? Them: No. Me: Neither do I. Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Them: Yes, of course. Me: Well, I don't. So, I guess I just believe in one less God than you do. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY <snipped> Everyone has a "belief system", because it is nothing more than their own internal construct of reality. You can't be human and not have one. <snipped> Firm Well, that's YOUR defintion of a "belief system." And you know it's yours since you put quotes around it. So, to clean up these couple of sentences, and reveal them as the syllogism they are, I write: All humans have their own internal construct of reality. I (Firm) define that internal construct of reality as the individual's "belief system." Therefore, All humans have a "belief system." ::: SIGH :::

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 7:41:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody @Firm, I think I said at the time it was only a minor aside to my main point (god isn't real). Think about it from our point of view:God is a work of fiction, and this is obviously the case, it isn't difficult or complex in any way. All the arguments have been heard (for hundreds if not thousands of years), and they've all ended the same way:no god. How openminded do you think it's reasonable to expect us to be? Would you be openminded in a discussion about vampires, when someone arguing that they were a vampire ignored the 'vampires aren't real' point, argued strongly (although badly) about semantics, claimed you didn't understand them, and (for some reason) started weak but numerous attacks on 'science'? Personally, I think agnosticism is a defensible position. I'm not prepared to give atheism the same leeway. I don't believe in vampires and werewolves, but if someone claims that they are possibly real, or were real, I wouldn't automatically laugh at them, and ridicule them. Just like UFO's, little green aliens and Big Foot, I don't think there is sufficient evidence for any of those, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that I'm wrong. Sure, extraordinary proof would be required for me, but there is still room in my mind for the possibility. And that is the key point: some atheists' absolute "knowledge" that no possibility exists in any part of nature for things we do not presently understand. The history of science is replete with examples of things that we did not understand, nor believe at the time, yet as our knowledge grew, we came to accept. As I mentioned in the original thread that this one spun off of, there are indications within science (quantum and string theory) that at least opens up the possibility that everything we think we have known about the universe may be wrong - or at least different - than what science has taught over the last several hundred years. Just one example: the distinction between matter and energy is apparently a false understanding. This absolutism is particularly bothersome coming from the very folks who claim that they are adherents of science, which, by definition, is required to be open-minded, and able to change their basic paradigms of the world based on new evidence. Lack of openness to possibilities is the anti-thesis of science, and when some atheist claim "science" as the basis of their belief, then it makes me believe that they really have no clue about what they are talking about. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/21/2010 7:46:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LanceHughes quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY <snipped> and I'll agree - for the most part - that "atheism" isn't a religion. It is, however, a "belief system". Religion is also a "belief system". Belief systems are somewhat more nebulous than a religion, and it's entirely possible that someone's belief system incorporates both religion and science. <snipped> I find it humorous that many atheist take umbrage with those statements, especially in trying to make it sound as if their "non-belief" isn't a "belief". <snipped> As a self-identified (in my profile) Militant Atheist, what I take umbrage at is being "strawmanned" - as the OP asks and as you have just done. I take umbrage at your lack of understanding of the atheist position and in particular that I have no belief system. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY <snipped> Everyone has a "belief system", because it is nothing more than their own internal construct of reality. You can't be human and not have one. <snipped> Well, that's YOUR defintion of a "belief system." And you know it's yours since you put quotes around it. So, to clean up these couple of sentences, and reveal them as the syllogism they are, I write: All humans have their own internal construct of reality. I (Firm) define that internal construct of reality as the individual's "belief system." Therefore, All humans have a "belief system." I think you misunderstand me. I did not claim that atheists do not have belief systems. Just the opposite. I claim that they do have a belief system. Firm

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875