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

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:08:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The problem I have with your comment is that you are playing fast and loose with two significantly different definitions of the word. To have faith in her logic is not the same as to have Faith. To have faith in her logic suggests she has a reasonable acceptance of its probability after examining evidence and argument. But to have Faith in religious doctrine suggests that you are using a way of knowing that has diverged from and/or even rejected Reason. To be in Faith you have a knowledge that comes from external or personal revelation/experience despite the unreasonableness of your conclusion. The atheist has faith in the reasonableness of his conclusion. Two very different uses of the word. Knowingly or not, you are conflating the two meanings for rhetorical purposes. A bit of sophism in your argument. This needs to be placed behind every post made by firm, treasure or anyone else on the God squad. I wish I would have written it. It would have seemed much more profound. Nice try domi. While Steel hasn't answered my question about which word he believes I'm playing with, my assumption is that it is the world "faith". If you read vincent closely, he is using two different forms and therefore two different definitions of the word "faith": Faith (with a capital "F") which means a specific religious system of beliefs related directly to the foundations of the specific religion. faith (with a small "f") which means belief in anything that does not come from direct personal experience. He is smart enough to realize the difference, but still makes the argument that they are the same, while castigating tazzy for her use of the words. They are indeed not the same, but he is the one making the error in understanding. If he gives credit to a scientist, that a scientist has "faith in their logic", then he must give credit to a person who uses logic and arrives at a different conclusion, because they may use different beginning assumptions. It's not the logic that is in question, it is the basic assumptions which the logic then uses to arrive at a conclusion. The difference is then how do you test the conclusion? In science, it must be either testable, or falsifiable. If it is not falsifiable, then it isn't in the domain of science at all. If it isn't testable, it may still lie within the domain of science, but simply lies beyond it's current ability and understanding. Commonly, when religious persons use the "capital F" Faith, they are talking about the specific dogma or beliefs, but that doesn't prevent them from understanding and using the "small f" faith, which is what tazzy, and many of us are attempting to get some of the atheist here to understand. But some don't seem to wish to understand this, and are insisting that we are using the "capital F" faith when we are not. Firm

JstAnotherSub -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:10:00 PM)
I did. And I accept that he sees things differently than I do, as do you. I do not accept the way you seem to feel that you are somehow more entitled to your thoughts and opinions, just because you can use big words and all that shit. There is no way to prove God exists to non-believers. There is no way to prove God does not exist to believers. That is it in a nutshell, with no big words and no need to put others down or question their intelligence. typing....not my best asset fer shure...

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:10:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ahh, in theory, and in the abstract, what you say is true, vincent. But generally, that's not how it works when scientists wish to explore something. Usually, they have a belief that there is something to discover, or they discover something through serendipity. That is the wonder that follows observation, Firm. It is not a belief there is something to discover, it is a question about what they observe. You are straining to insert the word "belief" into Science. quote: I'd also like to make the distinction between "facts" and "assumptive facts". A "true" scientist never considers any "fact" as absolute, just another basis for thinking and expanding knowledge. Many times through out the history of science, a "fact" has been discovered not to be true. What, then, was the "fact" while it was believed to be true, and what is it once it has been proved to be false? I never made the claim for anything but assumptive fact, Firm. Science is a process for getting the best information possible and constructing workable models. For example, if I can throw a ball and hit Mars (given my super-rocket abilities) I have pretty good information that my Model of the solar system is very good. If the Model fails to predict an event we happily change the model. That is how Science is different from religious faith. The Faith Model does not change despite new discoveries. quote: For example, at one time it was believed to be "a fact" that the smallest, indivisible bits of matter were electrons and protons, which make up atoms. Now we have quarks. Beyond that, we have vibrating string theory, in which matter is simply a form of energy. What "facts" make up "objective reality"? How can they change, if "science, logic and reason" tells us that one thing is a fact today, but isn't a fact tomorrow? Again, the simple answer is that Science is not in the business of proving "facts." It is in the business of constructing the best workable Models of reality that we can. And those Models are always subject to change given new data unlike say models of heaven and hell.

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:11:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: domiguy quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY What, then, was the "fact" while it was believed to be true, and what is it once it has been proved to be false? For example, at one time it was believed to be "a fact" that the smallest, indivisible bits of matter were electrons and protons, which make up atoms. Now we have quarks. Beyond that, we have vibrating string theory, in which matter is simply a form of energy. What "facts" make up "objective reality"? How can they change, if "science, logic and reason" tells us that one thing is a fact today, but isn't a fact tomorrow? But this has nothing to do with your own belief system. It doesn't!? ohhh, shit! Quick! What else do I believe, domi! Gotta keep my shit straight, yanno! [8D][:D] Firm

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:24:02 PM)
quote: If you read vincent closely, he is using two different forms and therefore two different definitions of the word "faith": Faith (with a capital "F") which means a specific religious system of beliefs related directly to the foundations of the specific religion. faith (with a small "f") which means belief in anything that does not come from direct personal experience. That was not my definition, Firm. Faith is knowledged claimed from revelation or personal encounter. faith is confidence in a process of reasoning. Not belief. You are obsessed with belief. quote: He is smart enough to realize the difference, but still makes the argument that they are the same, while castigating tazzy for her use of the words. They are indeed not the same, but he is the one making the error in understanding. Come on, Firm! The whole point of my discussion was that they are not the same! And as for castigating tazzy.... are you fucking nuts... you think I want her to tear me a new asshole? Don't get me in trouble here, Firm. [:D]

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:25:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Ahh, in theory, and in the abstract, what you say is true, vincent. But generally, that's not how it works when scientists wish to explore something. Usually, they have a belief that there is something to discover, or they discover something through serendipity. That is the wonder that follows observation, Firm. It is not a belief there is something to discover, it is a question about what they observe. You are straining to insert the word "belief" into Science. No strain at all, vincent. The difference is between the idealized version of "science" and the actual day-to-day reality of human beings. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I'd also like to make the distinction between "facts" and "assumptive facts". A "true" scientist never considers any "fact" as absolute, just another basis for thinking and expanding knowledge. Many times through out the history of science, a "fact" has been discovered not to be true. What, then, was the "fact" while it was believed to be true, and what is it once it has been proved to be false? I never made the claim for anything but assumptive fact, Firm. Science is a process for getting the best information possible and constructing workable models. For example, if I can throw a ball and hit Mars (given my super-rocket abilities) I have pretty good information that my Model of the solar system is very good. If the Model fails to predict an event we happily change the model. That is how Science is different from religious faith. The Faith Model does not change despite new discoveries. You have not made the claim of anything but assumptive facts, but many others are working with a different paradigm in mind when they argue that they have "the facts". I was simply pointing that out. Human beings construct theories of reality in their minds. We can do no other, and remain sane. The most open minded are suppose to be scientist, who's entire world view is suppose to be subject to change, based on experiential data and results, and the best of them are. Some atheist claim the same view, yet do not show the slightest open-mindedness, and therefore I discount their entire argument. If they can't get that basic issue correct, what does that say about the rest of their deductive and inductive abilities? I also do not believe in a hard either/or dichotomy of "science versus belief". Because of man's biological and psychological makeup, it is simply not possible to operate completely in either world. It must be a mix of both. Many religious thinkers understand this. Many scientist understand this. But this isn't what some of the "hard core" atheists wish to believe, and they are therefore fooling themselves, and show a lack self-awareness. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Again, the simple answer is that Science is not in the business of proving "facts." It is in the business of constructing the best workable Models of reality that we can. And those Models are always subject to change given new data unlike say models of heaven and hell. Again, I agree with you on the first part. Please explain this to some of the other posters. I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that "models of heaven and hell" are not subject to new data. If you research the history of most any major religion, you can see the doctrines and beliefs do indeed evolve over time. Firm

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:28:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: If you read vincent closely, he is using two different forms and therefore two different definitions of the word "faith": Faith (with a capital "F") which means a specific religious system of beliefs related directly to the foundations of the specific religion. faith (with a small "f") which means belief in anything that does not come from direct personal experience. That was not my definition, Firm. Faith is knowledged claimed from revelation or personal encounter. faith is confidence in a process of reasoning. Not belief. You are obsessed with belief. Ok. But I don't think tazzy was using the "Faith" definition, but the "faith" definition. I'll let her clarify, if she wishes. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: He is smart enough to realize the difference, but still makes the argument that they are the same, while castigating tazzy for her use of the words. They are indeed not the same, but he is the one making the error in understanding. Come on, Firm! The whole point of my discussion was that they are not the same! And as for castigating tazzy.... are you fucking nuts... you think I want her to tear me a new asshole? Don't get me in trouble here, Firm. [:D] Oops! Sorry. Firm

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:30:33 PM)
quote: I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that "models of heaven and hell" are not subject to new data. If you research the history of most any major religion, you can see the doctrines and beliefs do indeed evolve over time. Perhaps, but not from failure of those models to predict events but rather from changes in our understanding of the Natural world.... like the structure of the earth and the structure of whats up in the sky.

marie2 -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:35:36 PM)
Brainiac, I agree and understand your point about there being different contexts of the word "faith" being refered to in this discussion. My effort wasn't to conflate religious "faith" and trust type "faith" thereby proving that atheists and theists are operating from the same mindset. My effort was to try to illustrate to GotSteel, through some examples, that we can and do form beliefs all the time based on stuff other than hard facts, and scientific experiments. That "stuff", to me, is faith; the trust type of "faith". It may seem that my post was stating the obvious, but the way I have been reading Gotsteel on this thread, is that he seems to think that without hard facts, belief is harmful, or at the very least invalid. My position is that beliefs are formed in our brains all the time when we don't have fact one to back them up. Whether it's a religious belief or a life-principle type of belief, many (if not most) of our beliefs are based on "stuff" other than fact. And I feel the same way about our disbeliefs. quote: Your post suggests that these debates are pointless because both sides are equally wrong (or right, if you prefer). For me, this will never be a topic of right vs wrong. I was coming from a place of hey maybe I can throw my thoughts in here and cause gotsteel (or anyone for that matter) to view something from a slightly different angle. In reading Vincent's post: quote: But to have Faith in religious doctrine suggests that you are using a way of knowing that has diverged from and/or even rejected Reason. To be in Faith you have a knowledge that comes from external or personal revelation/experience despite the unreasonableness of your conclusion. To me, this is kind of an "of course" moment. In my view, beliefs (at least the philosphical and religious types) come to us on a different plane, they come from our senses and the way we perceive and interact with the world around us, they sort of sneak in; they don't neccesarily come in from a place of reason or logic. However, that doesn't invalidate them or render them useless.

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:37:15 PM)
Thank you, Luv. You're a sweetheart. * smiles *

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 12:40:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I'm not sure it is entirely accurate to say that "models of heaven and hell" are not subject to new data. If you research the history of most any major religion, you can see the doctrines and beliefs do indeed evolve over time. Perhaps, but not from failure of those models to predict events but rather from changes in our understanding of the Natural world.... like the structure of the earth and the structure of whats up in the sky. Granted. However, this just goes to prove one of my earlier points: that the "belief versus science" dichotomy isn't absolute on either side. My personal belief about Christianity is that many of the "truths" are allegorical for the simple reason that humanity was not able to understand the greater part of the mysteries behind a given truth, and therefore for a long period of time must rely upon authoritarian declarations. As humanity advances in understanding, a more clear and understandable basis for some of the religious truths will assert themselves. I don't think the deity wishes us to remain ignorant, but like children with a parent, sometimes it must simply say "because I said so". But, like any sane parent, we wish our children to grow up questioning, healthy, sane, and able to take their rightful place in adulthood. Kinda like not giving a 4 year old a loaded gun (or the trigger to a nuclear bomb), some things are "mysteries" to us, until we are ready and responsible enough to understand them. Firm

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:05:03 PM)
quote: My personal belief about Christianity is that many of the "truths" are allegorical for the simple reason that humanity was not able to understand the greater part of the mysteries behind a given truth, and therefore for a long period of time must rely upon authoritarian declarations. If that works for you that's fine, Firm. It is an interesting point of view. I would not mind discussing it with you. I suspect I would learn a lot. However, I think this is not the proper venue to explore personal spiritual understandings. As we have seen, so much is misconstrued through conflicts over definitions. Reminds me of Kissinger and the North Vietnam delegation debating the shape of the conference table in 1970 (?) [:)]

GotSteel -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:07:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 2) You followed by claiming: "religious belief can't possibly be rational because there is no logic underpining such belief" This right here is the first time I've ever used the word underpinning in a sentence and I've certainly never used your misspelled version; anyone can easily run a search and notice that. Attributing a quote to me which I didn't make, how obviously dishonest can you possibly get? It's not as though you just happened to fall on a couple of quotation marks while trying to understand my position, you must have made a conscious decision to forge this quote. How could you have possibly thought that was the way to go?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:07:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: My personal belief about Christianity is that many of the "truths" are allegorical for the simple reason that humanity was not able to understand the greater part of the mysteries behind a given truth, and therefore for a long period of time must rely upon authoritarian declarations. If that works for you that's fine, Firm. It is an interesting point of view. I would not mind discussing it with you. I suspect I would learn a lot. However, I think this is not the proper venue to explore personal spiritual understandings. As we have seen, so much is misconstrued through conflicts over definitions. Reminds me of Kissinger and the North Vietnam delegation debating the shape of the conference table in 1970 (?) [:)] Agreed. We need to get slowly sloppy drunk over some good spirits. Perfect time for such a discussion. [:D] Firm

Moonhead -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:12:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody [image]local://upfiles/347591/2FF88354B4A943A7B718D3BE7B549C5B.gif[/image] Perhaps somebody could post one of those repulsive Jack Chick things to demonstrate that atheists don't have a monopoly on unpleasant comics?

NorthernGent -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:21:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent 2) You followed by claiming: "religious belief can't possibly be rational because there is no logic underpining such belief" This right here is the first time I've ever used the word underpinning in a sentence and I've certainly never used your misspelled version; anyone can easily run a search and notice that. Attributing a quote to me which I didn't make, how obviously dishonest can you possibly get? It's not as though you just happened to fall on a couple of quotation marks while trying to understand my position, you must have made a conscious decision to forge this quote. How could you have possibly thought that was the way to go? It was a summation of your position....which could quite easily be dragged across to this thread where I had the time...will....inclination. Trust me....I've better things to do with my time than go back to one of your posts and quote you word for word.....which is why I give a brief summary based on memory. Look..respond to the flow of the conversation...that's twice you've swerved the question of rational self interest.....go back to the post.....the one to which you have just responded.....and argue the point man.

vincentML -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:28:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: My personal belief about Christianity is that many of the "truths" are allegorical for the simple reason that humanity was not able to understand the greater part of the mysteries behind a given truth, and therefore for a long period of time must rely upon authoritarian declarations. If that works for you that's fine, Firm. It is an interesting point of view. I would not mind discussing it with you. I suspect I would learn a lot. However, I think this is not the proper venue to explore personal spiritual understandings. As we have seen, so much is misconstrued through conflicts over definitions. Reminds me of Kissinger and the North Vietnam delegation debating the shape of the conference table in 1970 (?) [:)] Agreed. We need to get slowly sloppy drunk over some good spirits. Perfect time for such a discussion. [:D] Firm AbsoFukinLutely .... LMAO!!! Talk again soon. Getting near suppertime in the East.

marie2 -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:41:27 PM)
Damn. How come you never talk to me like that?

GotSteel -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:44:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent It was a summation of your position.... I don't mind you talking about what you think my position is, that let's me get feedback and clear up any misconceptions. However, that's different from forging a quote and attributing it to me. You do get that what you did was unethical don't you? quote: ORIGINAL: NorthernGent argue the point man. Please read the title of this thread because that's precisely what I'm doing. You're the one who's been swerving us off topic.

NorthernGent -> RE: Why do people think it's ok to strawman an atheist? (6/20/2010 1:58:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel You do get that what you did was unethical don't you? You really are tedious aren't you. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Please read the title of this thread because that's precisely what I'm doing. You're the one who's been swerving us off topic. The 'title of this thread' moved on somewhat a while back. And I'd hazard a guess the reason that came about was due to the OP being something along the lines of: "I'm being 'strawmanned' and I'm going to moan like fuck about it to the world so you can wallow in my self-pity too". As it happens.....the denizens of this board were extremely kind to you by moving the topic on to something remotely worth debating...when they could have said: "grow up...for fuck's sake". And still.....you continue to avoid what you and I know you're avoiding in order to save face which isn't pretty.

Page: << < prev 7 8 [9] 10 11 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875