a common atheist fallacy

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Geordon said:

 

I'm not talking about changing a worldview.  I'm talking about whether someone is able to rationally and unemotionally evaluate information on it's own merits.  Skills that are sorely lacking in our society these days.

 

 

Yes.

 

[cuchulain]

the speed of light in a vac is 186,282 miles per second.  this is objective fact independant of what i think about it.  as yet no objective, ADEQUATE, evidence as to the existence of god.

Edited May 29, 2018 by cuchulain

[Geordon]

4 hours ago, cuchulain said:

as yet no objective, ADEQUATE, single piece of evidence as to the existence of god.

 

Fixed that for you.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

When objective evidence is ignored, we get tragic results.  Things like Flat Earthers.  People of great faith and no valid supporting evidence.  Many of them cite the Bible for support.

 

Edited May 29, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Geordon]

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

When objective evidence is ignored, we get tragic results.  Things like Flat Earthers.  People of great faith and no valid supporting evidence.  Many of them cite the Bible for support.

 

 

Some  of them (many?  I don't know) don't even use critical thinking in the least.  For example, I saw one a few days ago say that the rest of the planets are definitely spherical because we can directly observe them through telescopes, yet the Earth is obviously flat because of personal observation...

 

? SYNTAX ERROR ?

[cuchulain]

my son recommends transplanting flat earthers as colonists to the moon, forcing them to perpetually see a round earth.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, Geordon said:

 

Some  of them (many?  I don't know) don't even use critical thinking in the least.  For example, I saw one a few days ago say that the rest of the planets are definitely spherical because we can directly observe them through telescopes, yet the Earth is obviously flat because of personal observation...

 

? SYNTAX ERROR ?

 

 

Two observations:

 

1.  Where is the edge?  If the Earth is flat, there has to be an edge.

 

2.  What about the other people, who believe with equal fervor -- in the Hollow Earth?  Like the different religions, they can't both be right.  They can both be wrong.

 

Apatheist that I am -- The clueless beliefs of foolish people are not my problem.  If they want to ignore external reality -- I'm not going to get into it with them.  I'm not beyond laughing at them.  I lack sainthood.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

18 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

my son recommends transplanting flat earthers as colonists to the moon, forcing them to perpetually see a round earth.

 

 

Imagine the complaints.  The Moon is made of green cheese and they're lactose intolerant.      

 

 

[mererdog]

On 5/29/2018 at 8:54 AM, cuchulain said:

the speed of light in a vac is 186,282 miles per second.  this is objective fact independant of what i think about it. 

It is a fact. But what is it evidence of?

It is an objective, verifiable fact that my uncle's cancer got better after he prayed to God. But what is this fact evidence of? My uncle and I definitely do not agree on that.

When people argue that God exists, they often offer a ton of facts. To make the complexity argument, for example, they'll cite the number of genes in a single cell or the statistical likelihood of an eyeball developing by chance. They are usually spot-on about the facts. Where we normally differ is in our interpretation of the facts- in our subjective determinations about what is evidence of what. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

On 5/29/2018 at 7:39 AM, Geordon said:

I'm not talking about changing a worldview.  

I am. The topic revolves around the question "Why don't you believe in God?" For me, that translates well to "Why don't you see pretty much everything completely differently than you do?"

Is it not like that for you? You think you could start believing without it being a big deal?

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog

[Key]

On 5/29/2018 at 3:25 AM, mererdog said:

Objective evidence is a myth. 

 

No one truly knows what is adequate for them to reevaluate their worldview. You can't know what it would take to get you to quit smoking, if you haven't quit smoking. And what it took to get you to quit last time doesn't tell you what it will take this time. Juries are inherently unpredictable.

I think part of the argument was that God would know what evidence would be adequate to reconsider a view and present it, if He were truly all-powerful and/or all-knowing and really cared enough to change said view.

[Key]

On 5/28/2018 at 10:36 AM, Geordon said:

 

I didn't specify, because I'm not worried about trying to get you to believe or not.  That's your cross/karma/etc to bear.  I'm just trying my best to relieve suffering where and how I can.  Which leads me to number 2...

 

 

Not a damned bit, if you'll excuse the play on words.   

 

 

Oh, you owe me a... something...  Mind bleach? ...for enticing me to search for that quote.  That was a rabbit hole that was bizarre, at best.  Anyway, the closest that I was either an oblique reference to Descartes (what a shock!) and a reference to the Ohio Educational Monthly from December, 1876.  I was too traumatized to look further than that 

 

Be that as it may, the statement that you quote is perfect, and what would be called "skillful means" in Buddhism.  It (whatever you define IT as) is as it is, nothing more.  And worrying about it is like eating soup with a fork (my own addition to the vernacular).

 

 

In my understanding (as imperfect as it is), Animism sees divinity in all things in the natural world... Trees, rocks, clearings, lakes, rivers...  

 

Polytheists, on the other hand, see multiple independent, separate, and distinct divine beings.

Your links are usually quite interesting. I had to look up "res", though, as I have never come across it somehow. As usual, thanks for the read.

[mererdog]

8 minutes ago, Key said:

I think part of the argument was that God would know 

So, we complain that the other guy has no proof for his claim, while simultaneously building a refutation out of unproven assumptions? That seems... fair?

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog

[Key]

Just now, mererdog said:

So, we complain that the other guy has no proof, while simultaneously building a  refutation out of unproven assumptions? That seems... fair?

Never said the argument was fair.

There are always differing perspectives of a debate, or verbal sparring. Some points get overlooked, others are overly highlighted. Always there is a sense of unfairness. 

When one offers a path towards an understanding, does the other cherry pick stipulations for that path to be fair?

That is how this argument is beginning to read to me. Just saying.

[mererdog]

53 minutes ago, Key said:

When one offers a path towards an understanding, does the other cherry pick stipulations for that path to be fair?

Sorry, I got lost here. Can you rephrase?

In the meantime...

I think that almost everyone has an innate desire to be fair. It is not a huge stretch to say we all desire justice. Truth be told, we are really, really, really bad at actually being fair. To be fair to us, however, this is largely because being fair is really hard.

When I believe, it is because of the evidence. When you believe the opposite of what I believe, you do so despite the evidence. This is true because I am right and you are wrong. It's how I see it, so how can I see it elsewise?

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog
Tried to make it funnier.

[Key]

7 minutes ago, mererdog said:

Sorry, I got lost here. Can you rephrase?

In the meantime...

I think that almost everyone has an innate desire to be fair. It is not a huge stretch to say we all desire justice. Truth be told, we are really, really, really bad at actually being fair. To be fair to us, however, this is largely because being fair is really hard.

When I believe, it is because of the evidence. When you believe the opposite of what I believe, you do so despite the evidence. This is true because I am right and you are wrong. It's how I see it, so how can I see it elsewise?

I agree with you here.

As for rephrasing the question: simply asked, if one person states there is a way for them to accept something, does someone else have a right to pick that way, to appease their own view of fairness?

But in a way, you answered it.

[Dan56]

33 minutes ago, Key said:

When one offers a path towards an understanding, does the other cherry pick stipulations for that path to be fair? 

 

Atheist don't nit-pick a path that requires faith, its pretty much; no proof no path, so they disregard it completely. And a person of faith can't compromise without abandoning their faith, so being 'fair' on either side of the conversation is an impossibility. When one person believes and the other doesn't, stipulations are moot points in a disagreement that can't be reconciled. And as chuchulain said in his opening remarks, its a fallacy that an Atheist is obligated to defend anything, nor is it necessary for them to cherry pick stipulations that might make a 'path' more acceptable, because they dismiss everything without concrete evidence to substantiate it as factual. If you can't appease someone in a debate, they'll never consider you fair, in fact, you'll likely just tick them off.. jmo  

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, Key said:

I agree with you here.

As for rephrasing the question: simply asked, if one person states there is a way for them to accept something, does someone else have a right to pick that way, to appease their own view of fairness?

I still don't get you. 

What people say and what is true do not always coincide. When someone says that there is a way for them to accept something, they may be wrong. It is a claim like any other, inviting the same level of scrutiny as any other. To simply take it at face value would be unfair, in the sense that it is an uneven application of a principle. Special pleading, if you will. I was trained to see that as a sign of flawed thinking. Specifically, I was trained to see it as a sign that emotional attachment to a position was overshadowing critical analysis.

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog

[Geordon]

On 5/29/2018 at 8:39 AM, Geordon said:

I'm not talking about changing a worldview.

 

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

I am.

 

Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. Moving the Goalpost.  

 

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

You think you could start believing without it being a big deal?

 

I am both a man of faith (Buddhist, Hekatean, Druid) and a man of science.  I do believe, but not in "your" (monotheistic) manner.  I also do not try to convince others to believe the same way that I do, unlike many Christians.

 

In order for me to "start believing" based on someone else's word, they would have to provide me with some sort of verifiable evidence that their deity exists.  Given verifiable fact (see further: prove) that the Christian God exists, it would no longer be a matter of faith.  Would it shake my world view?  Definitely.

 

But then again, consider Galileo.  He was convicted of heresy for his suggestion that the Earth is not the center of the universe. He provided verifiable evidence that the Christian/Catholic doctrine was incorrect and he was cast out for it.

 

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

It is an objective, verifiable fact that my uncle's cancer got better after he prayed to God. But what is this fact evidence of?

 

Correlation does not imply causation. See also: Spurious Correlations. Not knowing you or your uncle, I'll concede that he had cancer, it got better, and he prayed to God.

 

To your question about "what is this evidence of?" the answer is "nothing"  The fact that his cancer got better is only fact that his cancer got better.  That's it.

 

5 hours ago, Key said:

Your links are usually quite interesting. I had to look up "res", though, as I have never come across it somehow. As usual, thanks for the read.

 

One is glad to be of service.  I appreciate you taking the time to review the links that I provide.

 

5 hours ago, mererdog said:

That seems... fair?

 

Come now,  you have been alive long enough to know that life isn't fair!

 

5 hours ago, Key said:

When one offers a path towards an understanding, does the other cherry pick stipulations for that path to be fair?

 

I try to provide factual and provable statements that support my suppositions.  I hope and encourage other people to do the same.  When I do things like this, though, I am often accused of being unfair.

 

4 hours ago, mererdog said:

When I believe, it is because of the evidence. When you believe the opposite of what I believe, you do so despite the evidence. This is true because I am right and you are wrong. It's how I see it, so how can I see it elsewise?

 

Evidence ≠ fact (def. 1) in oh, so many cases

[mererdog]

11 minutes ago, Geordon said:

To your question about "what is this evidence of?" the answer is "nothing"  The fact that his cancer got better is only fact that his cancer got better.  That's it.

If this were true, medical science would not exist. When patient's get well, it is evidence that the treatment they were given was effective. In this case, he got chemo, surgury, and also prayed. I tend to think the medical stuff was more important than the religious stuff. My uncle disagrees. 

Edited May 30, 2018 by mererdog