cuchulain

You did say something nasty...when you called us schoolgirls. So, yeah. That's a flat out lie, friend. Or maybe you just forgot that part? Either way, I agree with your sentiment, to a point. You have as much right to post in opposition to our ideas as we do yours. As I said prior, I apologize for allowing my emotions to get the best of my posts. For the record however, you brought up I was a pacifist. I asked what was wrong with that. You detailed what was wrong with extreme pacifists and said you weren't referencing pacifists in general, then later said you didn't know there was a difference. You are way all over the place on your opinions of the pacifist, extreme or otherwise. I mean, if you don't know the difference, why bring up a difference at all? And yes, I consider it the straw man argument, you don't. I would like to think we could let that go.

It is interesting to me that so many people follow a religion who's patron specifically says he is not to send peace, but a sword. Sounds a little more like a violent religion to me. In terms of being a season for everything, that must mean there is a season for pacifism as well, yes? Regardless, the bible is something that(so far as I know) few atheists accept as true. I see nothing wrong with telling other people in the world I am an atheist, and peaceful. I see nothing wrong with any atheist advertising that they would like to start a group of like minded people, in terms of peaceful gatherings. I see nothing wrong with an atheist telling others via billboard that they can celebrate the mainstream holidays, which are mostly Christian based, without being Christian. And in terms of personal experience, I have encountered MANY Christians who, in my opinion, should be "talked down". That is, they should be converted AWAY from the religion, as they are taking things entirely too far. And that is my opinion as well as many others, some of whom are Christian. When a Christian professes we should rise up and slay the Muslims, and brags about interrupting a veterans day parade because it had a Muslim float, and talks about killing the homosexuals because they are an abomination, there really should be a little white padded room for that fellow, and an atheist to preach the peace. Again, just my opinion. But just so you know, I have encountered this guy. He's been to jail many times for domestic violence because he saw his wife as property, till they got a divorce. Then he went to jail for stalking, because he didn't believe in divorce. Finally he got a clue to leave her alone, but then decided to start picking on others. I realize I sound like I am blaming Christianity, but I understand it's all in this particular crazy guys head. It's just that he needs deprogrammed from religion, which has clearly brought him harm.

Straw man: Taking a persons statement and then rewording it enough that the meaning is changed in some manner, then attacking the new statement that you made as if it were the original. That's my basic understanding. You were the first to state I was a pacifist, or anything about pacifism in this topic that I have seen. If I overlooked someone else, my bad. I asked as a response if you had issue with pacifists. You replied about what you don't like about extreme pacifists. See the difference? The straw man is you place extreme in place, changing it up just a little. But enough that the idea is different than we were discussing. That was my beef. I didn't call you names, I simply referred to the straw man method as dishonest. It is. mererdog doesn't believe that I am referencing your method, but I don't think he knows since he isn't in my head. You are right, I dislike your debate tactics and find them dishonest. Hence why I called you out on it, where you said above I should correct your error? I did that. I don't like your conclusions, but hey, they are YOUR conclusions, not mine. I have a right to say I dislike them, just as you have a right to say you dislike mine. But at the least, I don't call you names, such as school girl. That's out of line. Why? Because it's a personal attack. It doesn't attack my methods of debate, it doesn't address my points or conclusions, or anything else but me. Two wrongs? I am perfectly willing in retrospect to admit I let my emotions influence me unduly. I apologize for this. I should have stated that you use straw man tactics, which I am not willing to engage, and let it go. Some context in my life at the time(since mererdog seems to like context). You referenced us imagining our mothers being beheaded and dying. At the time, my mom sits in a hospital dying from severe COPD. I do not state this as an excuse, simply as an explanation as to why I have been emotionally compromised in this discussion. I didn't think I was while I was posting, that ever happen to you? Or you, mererdog? Maybe, maybe not. It happened to me. I apologize for that. My point still stands. Dan, you use straw man a lot. Maybe you don't realize you are doing it, although it strikes me as remarkable that a person as intelligent as you are, who can read and interpret the bible in unique ways, would be unable to understand and stick with the salient points that a person brings up on a REGULAR basis. Even when it is pointed out, as you requested in your statement we do. However, I will give you the benefit of the doubt in this discussion, and refrain from commenting further about it. In the future when I point out that you are using this tactic, I hope you will give it some legitimate consideration rather than believing it is simply an attack against you personally. It isn't. It is a legitimate point. When you switch a persons point to something else then attack that point instead, it's straw man. Look it up if you don't believe me, and then reread what you wrote above and decide for yourself if that isn't what really happened. I hope there are no hard feelings between us, but understand if you cannot get over my calling your tactic dishonest, if you really believe it wasn't. But I was not calling it such out of spite, even though I did allow emotion to enter into my argument, something I try to avoid doing(sometimes without success).

The only two posters before this who said anything about Dan miscommunicating was Scott and myself. You said people. People is plural. So yes, context. If that was not your intention, state so clearly and I will apologize for misunderstanding.

context

Now, now, Pete. No complaining against Dan's approach, lest our own approach be hanged by a lynch mob...and called justice.

I don't believe that to be a personal attack. His methods ARE dishonest. The straw man is not a legitimate method, imo. I was attacking his method. You can believe otherwise, but that is how it is. Another dishonest method is swerving the discussion in a completely different direction than is being discussed currently. That is not a personal attack either, simply an assertion of my opinion of debate methods.

I could accede the point that certain things cannot be communicated to specific people, but I don't believe this to be the case on this particular point. It occurs to me now that I have fallen into the trap that Pete and Johnathan often fell into, and into which I often criticized them over as well. I think this is where I bow out of this particular portion of the debate, as it is clear that any PERCEIVED attack against Dan will be met with this, regardless of the facts of the debate. I will tell you all that I was not attacking DAN, but rather his methods. If he will change that method...but no, he won't. Suffice it to say that I will simply refrain from debating with Dan from now on, due to his use of the straw man. Have a good night, mererdog and Brother Kaman. One last point for mererdog. I believe you read emotion into a statement that had no emotion attached to it, way up at the beginning, when you used quote marks around a statement that I did not say. I interpret the quote marks around the words as putting words into my mouth, because I did not say those words. Quote marks should be used accurately, or not used, in my opinion.

The discussion of ideas is fine, I like that. The problem is when one particular member repeatedly misrepresents what someone else said in an effort to swerve around the point. But hey, if you don't like that, that's your right. You are right on one point. I know how Dan will respond. Dishonestly. So maybe I should simply stop responding to Dan. Something for me to consider.

I don't see me running. I don't think anyone else does either, though I could be mistaken. In the beginning of my time on this forum I misunderstood you a lot, that is true. Recently I have tried to correct that, I would hope that has been observed? If not, oh well. Dan on the other hand has had this very topic pointed out repeatedly. Without any alteration, or attempt at alteration, that I and many others can see. If you dislike my pointing this out, oh well. It is mine to do or not do. I believe I have every right to point out to another member of this forum that they engage in something like the straw man argument on a regular basis, and to tell them my response to them doing so. Disagree? File a complaint. For the sake of clear communication, what precisely did you mean by the last statement of truth and cowardice? I do not wish to misinterpret you, and so would appreciate it if you would state it clearly. If not, oh well.

How many times does the dice need to roll 6, mererdog? An example of the straw man? I said pacifism, and Dan quotes me and responds by saying he does have a problem with EXTREME pacifism. I didn't say extreme, it was added in to make Dan's argument more palatable. How many times does Dan do this? How many times do you need to see the die roll 6 before you think something is fishy? I simply choose to believe that Dan is not that illiterate, but if he wants to acknowledge that he is, that's fine. I will accept that and tell him his interpretation of the bible is flawed because he clearly cannot comprehend basic writing without adding in little bits. Seems pretty evident to me, though I fully acknowledge I could be wrong. And yes, that is hedging my bet.

Dan has a habit that others, including Johnathan and Pete, have pointed out repeatedly. And, repeatedly, they get backlash for pointing out Dan's habit. His habit? Putting words in people's mouths that aren't there, summed up. He likes to read what we write, interpret to his own agenda, then rephrase it to make us look like our argument is flawed. I believe, and I may be mistaken, that this is called the straw man? He claims every single time(and there have been numerous occasions) that it wasn't intentional. But I am starting to see the pattern myself. And I have defended him in the past for being misunderstood. But, at some point, someone who is misunderstood SO OFTEN should ask themselves and be honest if they aren't doing it deliberately. Regardless, I believe it to be deliberate. It's the only way he can manage to hold his own in a debate. So I choose to stop confronting Dan at this point, knowing he won't do anything remotely resembling actual logical debate and will instead twist words around to produce the "straw man" that he CAN attack and win against. A last point to Dan: You are advocating hate, while at the same time saying hate is bad when others use it. That is double standard. Beyond that, who began the hate? You are reading the results of hate and saying they are good, but they are the middle of the story. It's like taking the middle of a book and saying the rest is good based only on that, or deciding what the plot or theme is based strictly on the middle. We responded to 9/11 which was an act of hate, but what act of hate precipitated 9/11 on their side? No, I am not saying it was justified. I am saying, under YOUR logic, it WOULD be justified. If they were allowed to use hate as a motive, as you advocate US doing, then they weren't wrong by your own reasoning. I doubt you will consider this side of the argument, you will probably write it off after I pointed out your straw man tactic, but maybe you will reconsider. Jesus preached to people of the same faith? So it was an exclusive club? Glad to know I won't be invited to such hate mongering.

I find it interesting that you, Dan, use the term pacifist as if it were a dirty word. I have no problems embracing the pacifist way. If someone attempts to strike me, I will try to dodge and ask why. If they continue, I have no problem fleeing the scene. Call this cowardice if you will. I do not fear personal injury, but injuring them in turn does me no good. I talk on the small scale because I do not personally face terrorists bent on killing me, well...ever. Really, not a lot of people do, unless they have signed on for it. Sometimes people are bombed, but that isn't face to face. In any event. What positive action have you personally taken with hate as a motive? You specifically say hate leads to action, and liken that to positive or desirable action. Can you name an instance when hate has led to good? A principle of Satanism, if you are interested: If a man slaps your cheek, smash him on the other. I think you are sounding more aligned with satanism, Dan.

I get it. But I do not believe we as humans are COMPLETELY fallacious. That would indicate we were wrong all the time. I believe we as humans are rights sometimes and wrong sometimes. In terms of detaching emotion from my decisions, it is difficult and sometimes I fail. Stoicism for me is a path to attempt, but chances are good that I won't succeed completely at it. I suppose in this way I am alike with other philosophies that believe in seeking the unattainable perfection. The way I separate emotion from decisions is varied. I imagine I am the other person involved, perhaps, to see things from a different perspective. I consider the consequences of my actions and the reasons I am taking them and try to decide if I would be doing the same thing without an emotional attachment. Sometimes I think about problems like math equations, and simply remove all emotion from the decision making process. As I said, I haven't perfected my system by any means and sometimes I fail. I am always looking for new ways to improve as well.

Hate begets hate. I do not hate those who commit such crimes, and that does NOT mean I invite them to commit such against me. In fact, the point that I do not hate them might make them open their minds in an attempt to understand us. It might not, but not hating them certainly doesn't cause harm. I can certainly empathize with people who have suffered. It does not matter what they have suffered, I can empathize. I have heard repeatedly that I cannot possibly understand what someone is going through because I am not going through that particular piece of tragedy. I do not buy it. I may not feel the same depth of emotion that they do, but I can certainly rationally and emotionally process what they are suffering. When I hate, the violence continues. What does hate lead to that is positive, Dan? Seriously, you are advocating HATE. That is something I cannot get behind.

Hate is an emotional REACTION, not response. There is a large difference between response and reaction, my friend. Beyond such, I tend to attempt to deal in reality. Sometimes I fail. I do not see a purpose in imagining my mother being decapitated by a terrorist with a dull knife at present, and so I do not imagine such being the case. Imagination can be a dangerous weapon when used in such a manner. For instance, I could imagine all sorts of things, such as Christian revolutionaries decapitating my mother with a dull knife. I could imagine that you convert from Christianity into Satanism, or any number of other irrational things. The imagination is not useful in this context as it has no basis in reality.

I would like to think I wasn't that worried about being right over the truth, but it may be true. Something else for me to look into. I don't currently believe that to be hedging a bet so much as understanding that I may indeed be wrong, regardless of believing I am speaking the truth. I have come to understand that I make errors frequently, and so try not to make those errors in substantial statements, rather I use words like may be, or might. Then again, perhaps it is exactly hedging a bet. I probably come off as arrogant often enough to be seen as arrogant. It is something of a defense mechanism for me from past experience, and I try to curb that in. I certainly don't intend anyone to think I KNOW the answers 100%, and if that has become the case, this is the correction of that. I speculate the answers, and choose the most logical one to me at the time. Sometimes information changes, or the information I have changes, and I change my mind. I suppose that is hedging the bet.

The question isn't really about colors and vision for me, but more about frames of reference. Would a human born into a society where eyes did not exist for their species be able to perceive that they lacked the ability? If I am wrong, please correct me. You are suggesting that we as humans perhaps lack an ability to see the world around us in a complete enough manner to form conclusions about everything. That there are specifically gaps in our abilities which limit our ability to know? I am not suggesting we form conclusions about everything. Rather, the stoic point of view is that we should gain as much knowledge as possible and act on the knowledge we have. It is fruitless(imo) and perhaps impossible to act on knowledge we do not have. There are specific circumstances and instances where there are exceptions to this rule, I have no doubt, but in general I cannot act on knowledge that I do not have. Therefore, I view it as fruitless to believe in a deity, or higher power if you will, without evidence that I can accept that this deity or higher power exists. Perhaps there were world making fairies before anything else, and they are our creators. The lack of definitive proof against such a concept does not necessitate that I act as though that were in fact the truth. Rather, the lack of proof that that particular circumstance were the truth urges me to act as though that were a possibility still unproven and so to continue to act in accordance with what I already know.

Pascal's wager never worked for me. Firstly, the what if I am right argument swings so many ways when there are so many religions. True, you can pick one like on the roulette wheel and hope that you pick right. But If there is an all powerful all knowing and all loving God out there who wants us all to follow his path, there are clearly many better ways to go about that. And if I as a mere mortal can figure out better ways, well...a being that claims omnipotence should be able to one up me at the least. Beyond that, like I said, how do you pick the right faith? The only reliable form of picking I have come across and so have chosen is logic, and logic leaves every single faith I have put up against it lying in the dust. But that is ME, of course. I wouldn't presume to pick for someone else. An atheistic evangelist probably would try to do that, by showing that all faiths are false, or not falsifiable, or some such. That is their decision and path, in my opinion, and they are entitled to try to turn others away from what they view as the wrong path, just as Christian and Muslim and whatever other evangelists try to turn people away from what THEY see as the wrong path. That's the choice that any evangelist makes, that they have a line on the truth and would prefer for whatever reason to share that truth. I respect other faiths. Sometimes I fail at that, but I try to respect other faiths. It is almost always when someone comes along and says I am going to hell for not believing exactly like they do that the respect goes away. But that isn't about their belief, rather about their arrogance. My hope lies in the future of humanity, and so I am a humanist at least in so far as that goes. I believe that we as people can take our brightest minds, our most useful thinkers, and come up with something better. Pick anything, and it can be made better if people as individuals and as a whole try hard enough. Might not happen in my lifetime, but things get better little by little as long as we have the hope to seek out something just a little bit better. Little bits add up, over time, to big bits. So back to respect? I respect any belief that doesn't try to drag me down into hell for all eternity because I disagree that God is really three beings but also one being at the same time and if I eat pork I am doomed. You know what I'm saying? Any faith, any religion, has the capacity of bringing about positivity through its followers, if they make the choice to take that positivity in the world they live in and try to make things better. West Borough baptists? Nope, I don't respect them. They go places and all they ever do that I have seen is nay say. Lot's of Christians like to nay say, and Muslims, and Pagans, and whatever else, because Nay is something that is easy to say, easy to do and leads to very little failure on a personal level, as well as very little personal responsibility. Lot's of preachers out there get by with messages of hate and anger and fear...I think it's because it draws a crowd to see someone pointing out other people's faults. Not certain about that, but it seems to be my experience so far. So to the topic of this thread: Why does an atheist get judged differently than any other religion, and I mean ANY...Satanists get a better rap than atheists, even when they are evangelizing. I think they should get the same treatment. I have seen billboards by Christians that were entirely negative, from a secular point of view. But put something up from an atheist about positive Christmas not requiring God, and it gets slammed in the news. I guess my overall message boils down to accepting the message for what it is instead of the stigma attached to it. If the message is go out and have a good Christmas and be happy with your family, why criticize that? Sure, it might say you don't have to have God to do that, but guess what? You DON'T. You can celebrate Christmas as an atheist, or a pagan, or anything else, and focus on positivity with friends and family, WITHOUT GOD being involved at all. I have done it often. That's just the one example I can think of off hand, but there are so many things in this world that we can do in the name of humanity instead of God, or in the name of God even, so long as it's being done and leading to a better future or now. I volunteer my time in my community frequently, though not daily. I pick up trash, it's simple. I get a trash bag, and walk down the road and pick up for a while till I am tired, then I throw the trash away where it belongs instead of on the road. That's the simplest thing I do. I have volunteered at churches in the area that like to set up a day of the month for free meals to those in need. I don't agree with them religiously, but it doesn't hurt me to enter the building and help my community, you know? I don't catch on fire. I have helped with clothing drives, and various other projects in the area. Sometimes I help with other people, who are invariably religious. They don't mind that I am not. At least not at first. Sometimes they get frustrated and kick me out when I won't convert. That's a loss to the community, but I can find other places that are accepting. Ah...I have caught myself ranting.

We all die, friend. Live while you have the opportunity. If I hedged my bets by all the possibilities, I would not be doing much living, but rather more planning for what possibilities might exist. For instance, in the religious context, which God would I follow? All of them, since they are all technically possible? That alone would take an enormous amount of time. Or a more simple analogy would be that I own a car I don't want to have wrecked, and it could be wrecked at any time sitting in my parking lot, so should I sit outside watching and waiting? Nah, I will just drive the car and take all due precautions that are reasonable to avoid a wreck. I guess you could call taking those precautions hedging the bet, but I at least have evidence that car wrecks do happen, whereas I have no evidence of a law of nature that exists that prevents us from being capable of knowing certain things. Just my opinion, of course.

That is, of course, assuming one seeks popularity instead of truth. The truth is often unpopular. Of course, I view the truth in these cases as clearly biased on both sides. But I believe ultimately that both sides should be afforded a certain level of respect until they take actions that reveal they are not deserving of that respect.

I amend my previous thoughts to include the possibility that there is a natural law which prevents us from knowing certain things. I do not accede that this natural law exists, much in the way I do not accede that God exists, merely that it is possible. However, the possibility does not necessitate action. We act merely with our current level of knowledge, and thus until it is proven to me that there is indeed a natural law capable of withholding certain knowledge from humankind, I will act as though it does not exist. I will continue to seek knowledge with the understanding that all knowledge is attainable, until it is proven otherwise to me.

I have seen odd things myself Dan. I sat up the other night in bed, waiting to fall asleep, you know? I wear a pretty high prescription contact lens, so things in the room, they looked pretty weird to me at the time. As I dozed off, things kind of started to twist and move...Oh no! I must have been seeing hell! (sarcasm intended)

I have seen lots of billboards on a variety of subjects. The most common is Christian. Usually it says something along a positive line, but there is one near where I live that proclaims those who don't believe are going to hell. A very negative message, in my opinion. Of course, that is a value judgment on my part. Still...I have seen atheist billboards, but only in the news, and only with the news anchor decrying it. Granted, it's only on Fox news that I have seen this, so I do not know how wide spread the denouncing actually goes. If a billboard says you don't have to be a Christian to celebrate Christmas, I see that as a positive message. Again, a value judgment on my part. They were sure making a big to do about it on Fox, though. That is just one example, of course. Locally, there is a church, or some such, that sprang up downtown. It's called the "War Room for Jesus". Now, I can use my own reasoning skills and life experience with people in this area to understand that they probably don't mean anything negative about it, you know? I can say to myself, it's just a catchy name and they are trying to attract people's attention. That's what those catchy names are really for, you know? There is a major debate about this place, because some atheist around here found it to be negative and hostile. Let's face it. You say "War room" and it comes across as hostile. If it said "War room for Allah"...well, you better bet the churches would be out en mass to protest it, that's for sure. So an atheist protests it, and the place of course cries foul. Now, they named it that for a reason: To get attention. They got it. Just not in the way they wanted. Now there is a division about the subject, one side thinks the name is provocative, the other thinks the atheist is simply yelling into the wind, so to speak. Raising a stink. I know the guy, I know he honestly believes what he is saying. But even if he didn't, he has the same right to complain about a name as the place has to name itself what it wants. Just my thought, but everyone involved would do well to remember that they only have power over themselves, and their own reactions(or responses, more appropriately). Just another example, though, of how an atheist speaking their mind can get a bad rap simply because they are atheist, not for the position they hold. I was debating with someone on another forum about homosexual marriage. I was using one user name throughout the debate, and making points that were very related, but the other person simply wouldn't listen or even read most of them because they knew that I was an atheistic stoic and they were fundamentalist Christian. So I did something deceitful and evil, and started making the same points under a different name, and backing them up with the appropriate bible verse. He started liking the comments and agreeing 100%, and engaged fully in the conversation. He conceded my points one by one. Then I told him about the deception. Yep, it was foul on my part. I don't mind living with the stigma of having tricked someone into listening to me, if he don't mind living with the stigma of not listening to someone else simply because of their lack of faith.

An understandable position. Give me some time to think about it, eh?