The Atheist Evangalist

[cuchulain]

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.

Edited July 9, 2016 by cuchulain

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, cuchulain said:

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?

It would help if you provided an example of what words I put in your mouth? I'd be happy to clarify.. I was responding to the over-all gist of your post, I don't mean to speak for you, what I write is just my response and opinion to where I perceive you stand on any particular issue. I don't think I'm 'misunderstood', keep in mind that I use extreme examples to accentuate my position and the differences in what we believe. Granted, it may be an unorthodox way of making a point. Johnathan, Pete, and yourself are atheist/agnostic, so of course we disagree on everything. And how many of their arguments have been fallacy or diverted impressions of biblical conversations of what I believe? Talk about a straw man's argument. They've written things like "You support genocide", they assert such things because they contend that my God committed genocide. But of course I don't support genocide. Words are often put in my mouth, but I just interpret it as their reasoning and drawing their own conclusions.

In any event, the only example you provided was my misrepresentation of "pacifist". You wrote; "I find it interesting that you, Dan, use the term pacifist as if it were a dirty word". And my response was: "Its true, I have little regard for extreme pacifism". I was confirming what you asserted, but I intentionally added "extreme", not to misquote you, but to clarify that it was the extreme element of pacifism that I objected to.

With regards to hate, I simply believe there are good and bad forms of hate. If you dislike a person who steals from you and use your hate of theft as a motivation to correct the wrong doing, its good. But if your the thief and hate being poor, so you steal from rich people, then your hate is bad. Its no different than love, it can be a negative or positive emotion depending on how its administered. 

 

 

[Dan56]

14 hours ago, scottedward said:

I'll try to be clear.  Life is not black or white.
You keep reading things I write and have taken them as far to the extreme right as you can.   Please knock it off.  Common sense plays a role in determining which of the hopeless are safe and which of them are freakin' Adolf Hitler or Bin Laden.  The hopeless could simply be someone without hope.  They might be someone without means, who can be driven to doing something extreme to make an important or desperate point.  These unfortunate people can be shown.  They can learn that we regain our Hope simply by offering the same to another.  They can be guided in a better direction.  It is for this reason that I continually stress that 'hopeless' and 'evil' are two completely different labels.  I find that Evil is too simple.       

We just disagree, I guess things are black & white for me, but there are shades of gray for you. Evil is evil, but you excuse evil when its derived from someone who's desperate or without hope. I just don't feel that being unfortunate gives a person the right to harm others. I do agree that patience and understanding go a long way in defusing conflicts, but I don't agree that hate is always a negative emotion that should be squashed, because sometimes its justified. Hate can be an unjustified emotion that emanates from evil intent, but hate can also be a strong dislike of the unrighteous and harmful actions of others.    

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

Sorry, Dan, but your excuses do not make sense, in terms of broader Biblical context.

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor^[a] and hate your enemy.’ ⁴⁴ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. ⁴⁶ If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? ⁴⁷ And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? ⁴⁸ Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

I  noticed how you shifted from talking about hating people to talking about hating sin, as if the two are the same. They are not. 

And, for the record, atheists talk about the Bible too.

Not excuses, I just interpret what Christ meant differently. If someone is your enemy, hate is a natural response. But as Paul wrote; "Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21). Jesus was teaching not to return evil for evil. If someone steals from you, don't steal from them, that amounts to vengeance and is returning hate. But when you hate someone who offends you, its a positive emotion when it motivates you to pray for them, wanting God to help correct their error is an act of love. As I mentioned before, just as a parent corrects a child for doing something they dislike or hate, making an effort to put the child on the right path is rooted in love. We can hate evil, but confront it with good, and by 'good', I mean corrective measures.  

6 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I don't believe that to be a personal attack.  His methods ARE dishonest. 

No problem, I don't take your objection to my debating tactics as a personal attack, feel free to express any problems you see as unfair responses. You didn't resort to name calling, so that's a plus . However, insinuating a person is dishonest could be construed as saying they're lying. Sorry if I mischaracterized your position or thoughts, it was not my intent. Sometimes I draw the wrong conclusions or don't express myself with enough diligence.

[Pete]

Interesting how a topic about atheism has again become a topic about what Dan thinks.  Whether we want it or not. I have experienced the straw man approach often but this is then supported by more straw men. Now where did I put those matches.  

[cuchulain]

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

Edited July 11, 2016 by cuchulain

[Pete]

I have met the mob often.  You have to have a bit of let each to their own and do not care if they disagree.  The more you take on Dan the more he will come back with what we see as more nonsense and people will support his right to say it or throw up a smoke screen. It is often just keeping the status quo on the forum. Just hang on to your own sanity and let it go. It ain't worth it.

[Dan56]

If you guys would like me to leave the board I will.. Your both super-sensitive and easily angered, but I shouldn't be required to walk on eggshells just because my opinions are diametrically opposed to yours.  You complain because you don't like how I express myself, don't like how I explain things,  say my arguments are unfair, don't like my debate tactics, don't like my conclusions, insinuations, or analysis, and you have an obvious hatred of Christianity, but your complaints against me are based on nothing mean spirited or against the rules.  I say what I think, but I usually try to sugarcoat it because I'm aware of  the fragile ego's here.  If you think I've mischaracterized something you've said, don't cry like a couple of school girls, correct my error.  And for the record, the subject wasn't about 'Dan' until you made it so. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Dan56

[Pete]

And there you go again Dan. I checked page 1 and I did not bring you into the topic. However whatever. 

Edited July 12, 2016 by Pete

[mererdog]

On 7/8/2016 at 10:40 PM, cuchulain said:

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.

To call it dishonest speaks to motive, not method. You aren't simply talking about actions, you are making assumptions about motive. This is no different than assuming someone is a liar whenever they are factually incorrect. It is just bad reasoning.

Incidentally, I just noticed what you said earlier about the quotation marks. You need to understand that quotation marks do not always indicate a direct quote.  My earlier usage was what is known as dialog. The quotation marks do not indicate that someone is being quoted, but simply that the text is verbal. All that aside, even if I was directly quoting someone, why did you assume it was you?

Edited July 12, 2016 by mererdog

[mererdog]

As an atheist, I have been conflicted about Christmas my entire adult life. The secularization of a people's holy day bothers me. Talking about taking God and Christ out of Christmas is like talking about taking civil rights and nonviolence out Martin Luther King Jr Day. I would expect a fairly negative reaction from a large number of people, you know? It is demeaning.

Yet I have Christian family members who are, themselves, fully sold on the notion of a secular Christmas and therefore don't understand why I would not want to participate. I don't want to insult either group, and at the same time I resent being in the position in the first place. As a result, I tend to be more than slightly irritated during the season... and also more than slightly irritating to be around, or so I am told.

[cuchulain]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

 even if I was directly quoting someone, why did you assume it was you?

context

[mererdog]

3 hours ago, cuchulain said:

context

The context where I said I was referring to "people" and where someone else was complaining  about having words put in their mouth in the post just before mine? That is the context that made you assume it was all about you? That makes little to no sense, you know...

[cuchulain]

On 7/8/2016 at 8:59 PM, mererdog said:

As an aside, it is a little disconcerting that people get so upset about someone misunderstanding them. 

"How dare you suggest that something I said cannot be perfectly understood by everyone! How dare you think I meant something other than what I did! The nerve!"

Its just odd. I understand wanting to correct the error, but there is so much hostility some times....

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.  

[cuchulain]

16 hours ago, Dan56 said:

If you guys would like me to leave the board I will.. Your both super-sensitive and easily angered, but I shouldn't be required to walk on eggshells just because my opinions are diametrically opposed to yours.  You complain because you don't like how I express myself, don't like how I explain things,  say my arguments are unfair, don't like my debate tactics, don't like my conclusions, insinuations, or analysis, and you have an obvious hatred of Christianity, but your complaints against me are based on nothing mean spirited or against the rules.  I say what I think, but I usually try to sugarcoat it because I'm aware of  the fragile ego's here.  If you think I've mischaracterized something you've said, don't cry like a couple of school girls, correct my error.  And for the record, the subject wasn't about 'Dan' until you made it so. 

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).

[Dan56]

8 hours ago, cuchulain said:

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 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).

I don't believe I was presenting a straw man's argument, I was more-less just sizing up the gist of what I thought you were saying and responded to it. There was no deliberate attempt to misconstrue what you said or fabricate a false impression of anything you wrote. I just drew some inaccurate conclusions by comprehending something different from what you meant to imply. Keep in mind that you did write; "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".  What's the difference between a regular pacifist and extreme pacifism anyway?

And in regards to my crazy statement; "Imagine a terrorist decapitating your mother with a dull knife and then tell me your incapable of hate or that its just superficial". I was just trying to make a point by attempting to suggest something that might get you angry, but neither you or scottedward could even imagine such a thing, let alone get upset about it. Sometimes I use analogies to expound on a pov, not to misdirect the conversation or put words in your mouth (straw man), but to illustrate a point relative to the subject matter. Its just my style of conversing, not a contrived tactic to intentionally alter the subject. 

Pacifism isn't my cup of tea, but I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses that route. In fact, if I were on trial for my life, I'd prefer having you guys on my jury. But if I were under-fire in a foxhole, I'd definitely want some angry guys alongside me who were willing to fight.

[mererdog]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

What's the difference between a regular pacifist and extreme pacifism anyway?

I actually thought you were making a distinction between people like myself and the people who call themselves a pacifist but have a laundry list of "last resorts" where they consider violence to be an acceptable response. I thought that because of old conversations we were both involved in where several people expressed varying ideas of what they meant when they called themselves pacifists. It is fascinating how the same words can lead different people to different conclusions...

[mererdog]

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

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.  

I was speaking to the broader historical context of the forum as a whole, not this one topic. This is a recurring issue involving lots of people. My words were meant as a warning against going down the same dark path again. They were clearly only partially successful in that regard...

Edited July 13, 2016 by mererdog

[Dan56]

3 hours ago, mererdog said:

I actually thought you were making a distinction between people like myself and the people who call themselves a pacifist but have a laundry list of "last resorts" where they consider violence to be an acceptable response. I thought that because of old conversations we were both involved in where several people expressed varying ideas of what they meant when they called themselves pacifists. It is fascinating how the same words can lead different people to different conclusions...

Very true... I tend to think that a regular pacifist is one who just tries to avoid violence, and is reluctant to resolve disputes via physical confrontation.  The extreme version is one who won't retaliate under any circumstances, even self defense. But its up to individuals to label themselves. Whenever I define atheist, agnostic, pacifist, etc, it pisses people off.. What's 'extreme' to one person might be moderate to another, so we're usually arguing semantics. The same goes for Christian fundamentalist, there are degrees of fundamentalism, some extreme, some moderate, some liberal. I'd define myself as moderate, but I'm sure there are others who think I'm a radical s.o.b. 

I didn't mean to cause a ruckus, I just chimed into this tread to say; "I don't think its possible to respect something you dislike or hate". I believe the volatile response I got lends credibility to my opinion . Tolerate  what you hate, yes... but speaking for myself, I can't respect what I hate.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 7/8/2016 at 2:59 PM, cuchulain said:

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.

Thank you for understanding.   If I don't say something, Dan gets to crap all over the board without opposition.  If I do say something,  I'm intolerant and picking on poor Dan.  It's strictly a no win for me.  On reflection, I've had enough.  Somebody else can do the shovel work.  I'm tired of it.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 7/11/2016 at 2:51 PM, Pete said:

Interesting how a topic about atheism has again become a topic about what Dan thinks.  Whether we want it or not. I have experienced the straw man approach often but this is then supported by more straw men. Now where did I put those matches.  

Sure enough, it's about Dan -- again.  How very tedious.