a common atheist fallacy

[cuchulain]

18 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

In a long past thread, when the discussion was about Agnosticism -- meredog has been purist about what is knowable.  I'm not seeing that here.  Possibly I'm simply not finding it.  I suspect that your reacting to something old that isn't here now.

 

There have been other threads, where people argued that external reality is subjective.  I don't see that happening here.  Still, sometimes the past echoes.  In this instance, I think you're getting stuck on past arguments, instead of current stuff.

could be.  i tend to try to figuure out where people stand on topics, but with mererdog it changes depending on some unknown, and i let that frustrate me more than it should.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, cuchulain said:

could be.  i tend to try to figuure out where people stand on topics, but with mererdog it changes depending on some unknown, and i let that frustrate me more than it should.

 

You have watched me have my own heated discussions with meredog.  I have become convinced that meredog is a prisoner of his own inhuman standards of intellectual purity.  I am persuaded that he has no bad intentions for us.  The problem is his standards.  I think he's making himself even more miserable with his standards than he's making you.

 

You want to know where meredog stands?  On intellectual razor's edge.  It's not a good place to stand.  A man can really cut himself up.  We all have our issues.  I urge you to be patient with meredog.  He has his issues.  We have ours.  It's part of being Human.  There are times when we all stink.  Nothing for it but to try to be kind to each other, and move on.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 21, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

On 6/20/2018 at 10:45 AM, cuchulain said:

knowledge, or purity therein.  evidence and the ability to define some as subjective and objective.  mererdog seems to say there is no objective.

If you look back, you will find that I said that facts are objective, but that using facts as evidence requires putting them through a subjective process. Evidence is the word we use for the things that cause us to form opinions. This is how we can look at the same fact and consider it evidence for different things. The facts are objective. The evidence cannot be.

This does not mean that we cannot learn. It means that learning is a subjective process. It means that we can have all the facts and still come to wrong conclusion. It means that there is no real way to know the answer to the question "Why dont you believe" because it is too subjective a subject.

Edited June 22, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 6/19/2018 at 8:51 AM, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

2.  You might remember that the next time we talk about Reiki or Therapeutic Touch.

Hey now. I have never said things like "There is no good reason to think that Reiki works." I have simply expressed my personal opinion and presented the evidence that led me to my conclusions. And I have been careful to note that it is simply an opinion, and that the evidence can be explained differently. This is my idea of being fair. Not intellectual purity. Fairness.

Edited June 22, 2018 by mererdog

[cuchulain]

if all evidence is subjective, and all fact is determined by evidence...do you not follow?  or is this more mind games? i have a hard time believing you don't follow this logic. 

 

fact...a thing that is known or proved to be true.  proof...evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

for example, the speed of light has been factually established in comparison to other objects(see relative speed).  it was established using objective evidence...relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independant existence.  having reality independant of the mind.

 

honestly, my observations of you indicate a person who deliberately stands upstream peeing in the water while others are drinking downstream.  i would prefer, since you are immune to the ignore feature, that you no longer respond to my comments.  i will do likewise.  it's a simple request that of course you will or not acede to.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, mererdog said:

Hey now. I have never said things like "There is no good reason to think that Reiki works." I have simply expressed my personal opinion and presented the evidence that led me to my conclusions. And I have been careful to note that it is simply an opinion, and that the evidence can be explained differently. This is my idea of being fair. Not intellectual purity. Fairness.

 

I don't remember any evidence.  What am I over looking?

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

39 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

if all evidence is subjective, and all fact is determined by evidence...do you not follow?  or is this more mind games? i have a hard time believing you don't follow this logic. 

 

fact...a thing that is known or proved to be true.  proof...evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement.

 

for example, the speed of light has been factually established in comparison to other objects(see relative speed).  it was established using objective evidence...relating to or existing as an object of thought without consideration of independant existence.  having reality independant of the mind.

 

honestly, my observations of you indicate a person who deliberately stands upstream peeing in the water while others are drinking downstream.  i would prefer, since you are immune to the ignore feature, that you no longer respond to my comments.  i will do likewise.  it's a simple request that of course you will or not acede to.

 

 

If I understand meredog  correctly -- always a big "if" :

 

He is saying that the evidence itself is objective.

Interpretation of that evidence is subjective.

 

It's a fine point.  It could have been expressed better -- but I don't see bad intentions.

 

 

[mererdog]

 

16 hours ago, cuchulain said:

if all evidence is subjective, and all fact is determined by evidence...do you not follow?  or is this more mind games? i have a hard time believing you don't follow this logic. 

I follow the logic. I disagree with the premise "all fact is determined by evidence." 

If You don't want me to reply to you, I won't. Provided, of course, that you stop talking about me.

Edited June 23, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

I don't remember any evidence.  What am I over looking?

 

 

I linked to information about Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch studies. It was met with a lot of hostility and ad hominem. I dont remember whether that was from you, specifically, so that's not a personal accusation. Its just why I remember it. It seemed like the reaction was way out of proportion to just a link to a set of research papers.

Edited June 23, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

I linked to information about Emily Rosa's Therapeutic Touch studies. It was met with a lot of hostility and ad hominem. I dont remember whether that was from you, specifically, so that's not a personal accusation. Its just why I remember it. It seemed like the reaction was way out of proportion to just a link to a set of research papers.

 

 

Oh.  Those studies.  Pure gotcha, from Holy warriors defending medical orthodoxy.  The worst kind of "skeptic".    I didn't respond to your link.  You must be thinking of someone else.  Are you sure you posted to this board?  It's something I would have remembered.  

 

As to my opinion of the studies in question ……………          They were a touch lacking in objectivity.      

 

They are well known.        

Edited June 23, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

1 hour ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Are you sure you posted to this board?

Yes. And your response is not that far off from what I got. You insulted the study and its sources, but provided no objective reason to think the study is actually flawed. As if you were responding to a personal slight, rather than a scientific paper 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

50 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Yes. And your response is not that far off from what I got. You insulted the study and its sources, but provided no objective reason to think the study is actually flawed. As if you were responding to a personal slight, rather than a scientific paper 

 

An emotional response on my part, based on two sets of experience.

 

I have taken workshops with Janet Macray and Deloris Krieger.  I actually know something about the subject.  Unlike the critics who foam over theory.  Yes, foam.

 

I have been harassed out of a few Skeptic groups.  They never studied Therapeutic Touch and never had a session -- but they knew.  Oh, how they knew.  Mean, nasty and vicious hardly covers it.  A true fuster cluck.  And they always lead off with the Rosa papers -- like a Fundamentalist waving Scripture.  

 

Yes, I reacted badly.  The slights have been very personal.  In the best of all possible worlds, I would respond with equanimity.  Alas, I am neither a Buddha nor a saint.  

 

 

Edited June 23, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

An addendum:  That should have been Doloris  Krieger.  Not Deloris.  

[Seeker]

Possibly even Dolores.

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 hours ago, Seeker said:

Possibly even Dolores.

 

 

 

Yes, thank you.  

[mererdog]

19 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

An emotional response on my part, based on two sets of experience.

So, a point I have been trying to make in this thread is that our emotional reactions can prevent us from being able to engage in fair critical assessment- and that this can happen without us being aware of it. This kind of cognitive bias is very well documented and no one seems to be immune. When our bias against an individual or group can cause us to be biased against evidence presented by that individual or group, our beliefs simply cannot be wholly evidence based. There must be other factors in play that are just as important, if not more so.

[cuchulain]

On ‎5‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 12:32 PM, cuchulain said:

Something I have had trouble with as a person in general, but especially in the area of discussing my atheism, is understanding that I do not have to answer a bunch of questions.  The conversation(or attempted conversion, if you will) usually goes something like..."I'm an atheist", and the response being "Why don't you believe in God?".  That's right where I and many others mishandle things, I think.  I have no burden to answer why I don't believe in God.  When asked this question, I try to remember I don't have the burden to prove why I don't believe, but that the person who is at this point trying to convert me has the burden to show why I should believe.

Often it is the case that a generally nice person will try to answer the questions put to them.  A question places a lot of feelings on me, personally.  Usually I feel like I owe the person asking some kind of response, it just seems like the polite thing, you know?  I have been raised by people who believe in giving to each other, in respecting each other and treating each other the way we would like to be treated.  For the most part, this is sound practice for me.  But there are those people out there who know just what that means, and they use it to place a burden on me that doesn't exist but that I perceive nonetheless.  

Just a thought for the day, after dealing with some narcissistic personality types.

inadequate evidence seems the best response, but my initial post was basically about not needing to answer why i don't believe something.  i see a lot of youtube videos that start with a christian asking the Atheist why they don't believe.  i think that since i'm not trying to convince them but they are trying to convince me, it's not about why i don't believe but rather why they do. 

 

if i took the time to explain why i don't believe all the things i don't believe, it would take a long time for talking about nothing.

Edited June 24, 2018 by cuchulain

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

So, a point I have been trying to make in this thread is that our emotional reactions can prevent us from being able to engage in fair critical assessment- and that this can happen without us being aware of it. This kind of cognitive bias is very well documented and no one seems to be immune. When our bias against an individual or group can cause us to be biased against evidence presented by that individual or group, our beliefs simply cannot be wholly evidence based. There must be other factors in play that are just as important, if not more so.

 

When the community of organized "skeptics" goes on the attack -- because they know with supernatural certitude when something is bull ** -- I get to be "skeptical" of their "studies".  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, cuchulain said:

inadequate evidence seems the best response, but my initial post was basically about not needing to answer why i don't believe something.  i see a lot of youtube videos that start with a christian asking the Atheist why they don't believe.  i think that since i'm not trying to convince them but they are trying to convince me, it's not about why i don't believe but rather why they do. 

 

if i took the time to explain why i don't believe all the things i don't believe, it would take a long time for talking about nothing.

 

You probably don't believe that their are green kangaroos on Mars.  It is not that the evidence for God is inadequate.  There is no evidence at all.  None.   What objective facts do we have about God?  None at all.  What then is the foundation for belief?  Only assertions, made without evidence -- which can be dismissed without evidence.

 

You make simple things complicated.           

[cuchulain]

22 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

You probably don't believe that their are green kangaroos on Mars.  It is not that the evidence for God is inadequate.  There is no evidence at all.  None.   What objective facts do we have about God?  None at all.  What then is the foundation for belief?  Only assertions, made without evidence -- which can be dismissed without evidence.

 

You make simple things complicated.           

i do mmake it complicated sometimes.  but, i did say inadequate for a reason.  a written account exists and is evidence.  it may be falsified or fraudulent evidence, but it is evidence the same as if joe down the street files a false statement with the police against his neighbor bill.  i agree we hanothing objective.  the authors were anonymous superstitious middle eastern men whose accounts don't match an might be falsified for an agenda and have been mistranslated and...well, more than i care to put, really the point, being more succinct if i can, is its not my job to disprove anything, but theirs to prove.

Edited June 24, 2018 by cuchulain