Engagement protocol

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Except for the on-topic part. And the part about starting an argument. And the part about intending to provoke an emotional response.

To further elucidate, I believe I could justifiably call you a d|p sh|t here without being rightfully called a troll, given that the label fits you. The reason why this is not trolling, even though it is inflammatory, is that it's directly on topic, and right on the money.

You elevate name calling with just a few very short strokes.
I'm sure your teachers must be beaming with pride at your maturity.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You elevate name calling with just a few very short strokes.

I do, don't I. 😀

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
So exchange 'atheist' for 'theist' and then change the authorship from you to me and you will see how the resulting entrenched perspective is the primary reason for the lack of clarity or agreement between the atheists and the theists--- we're at an impasse, generally speaking.

Funny thing, though: the atheist must come to the house of the theist for th ...[text shortened]... tion.
Although I am sure such irony is lost on the atheist, from what I've gathered of the lot.

I would go beyond saying that it's often the case, to say that it's almost
always the case, that in a disagreement there are [at least] two sides that
both believe the other side to be wrong/misguided/irrational/stupid/ect ect...

And were truth dependent on mere opinion that might be as far as anyone
could get.

However truth and logic and rationality [and science] are not dependent on mere
opinion. Just as if one person claims that 2+2=5 and another claims that it is =4 ,
It is often possible to determine which side [if any] is actually right, or has
correctly reasoned and applied logic to the evidence at hand.

There are rules of logic, standards of evidence, methods of rationality ect...

And if one side is correctly utilising the same and the other isn't, then while
both sides might symmetrically think that they are right and that the other side
is wrong [and wont admit it/be reasonable/ect]... The symmetry is broken by the
fact that one side is actually correct, and the other isn't.


It is thus trivial and pointless to point out that both [or more] sides of the arguments
here believe the other side[s] to be wrong and to be intransigent/illogical/ect...

What matters is whether anyone IS actually correctly applying logic and reason
and whether one side actually admits when they are wrong rather just claiming it ect...


And while it might feel to you that your side is right, and mine wrong... The fact is
that WE are the ones correctly following the rules of logic and reason far more often
than you do. The fact that you don't actually understand how to be rational and logical
is part of the problem.


It's why my beef with all religious/theistic beliefs tends to boil down to the problem of
faith.

By which I mean that if, as you [theists/religionists] all do, you view believing [holding a strong
conviction that] propositions based on a total lack of evidence and/or despite evidence
contraindicating that proposition then you are by definition failing to follow the rules of
logic and rationality that enable debates to be settled reasonably and with evidence.


You cannot be reasoned with until you stop accepting faith as a valid means of forming
beliefs and begin using the tools of logic and rationality. And a lot of the arguments
boil down to trying to demonstrate how crazy your beliefs are, and/or demonstrating
what proper reasoning looks like in the hope that you [collectively] will pick up on the
reasoning and realise for yourselves that what you believe is not reasonable or rational or
logical or true...

[EDIT: And I will point out here, that in places like the states where a large majority of
people are born and raised as theists [usually Christians of some stripe] most atheists
are ex-theists and have stories of having their minds [usually very slowly] changed
by encountering arguments that challenged their faith based beliefs. And so I am not
buying anyone claiming that such arguments are pointless and never change anyone's
mind. What they almost never do is magically de-convert people on the spot. But that
doesn't mean that they are pointless or ineffectual]

Of course this is done with varying degrees of skill and/or success, interspersed with quite
a bit of exasperation and frustration and a smattering of animus.


We know you believe you are right. We also know that you are wrong. But saying that will
not change your mind one jot, so back to actually demonstrating how wrong you are we go.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I would go beyond saying that it's often the case, to say that it's almost
always the case, that in a disagreement there are [at least] two sides that
both believe the other side to be wrong/misguided/irrational/stupid/ect ect...

And were truth dependent on mere opinion that might be as far as anyone
could get.

However truth and logic and rat ...[text shortened]... will
not change your mind one jot, so back to actually demonstrating how wrong you are we go.

This is exactly the crux of the issue: the atheist considers the weight of truth on his side owing to his conviction that his argument is based upon something immovable, immutable.

The theist believes the same thing.

Issues arise, however, when the atheist attempts to employ logic, reason or even the occasional "scientific method" but fails first to either define the rules of engagement within any one of those or (worse) does not remain consistent within the stated rules of the same.

Too often, when the theist attempts to hold the atheist to their own ground rules (this is not to suggest that logic, reason or science itself are the domain of the atheist; clearly no such ownership exists), the atheist spends [I]considerable[/I] effort in obfuscation or blatant goal-shifting... and then accuses the theist of the very thing they themselves are doing.

Here's but one very simple example.
Logic and reason dictate that something must come from something, that it cannot simply arise on its own.
Theists claim there was (!) nothing, and then there was something and that God created the something--- so we toss our philosophical hat over the fence from the beginning by saying something which superficially appears to contradict logic and reason.
And, we say so on faith.
Atheists wrestle with why/how there is something but cannot settle on any one idea which stands to any of the disciplines.
And, they say so on speculation.
Both of the underpinnings are--- without question--- unknowns.
Yet the theist shows his work whereas the atheist throws all of the disciplines out the window while calling the theist illogical, lacking in reason.

Where's the respect for logic/reason/science there: in the corner of the atheist or does it sit more comfortably with the theist?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is exactly the crux of the issue: the atheist considers the weight of truth on his side owing to his conviction that his argument is based upon something immovable, immutable.

The theist believes the same thing.

Issues arise, however, when the atheist attempts to employ logic, reason or even the occasional "scientific method" but fails first to ...[text shortened]... son/science there: in the corner of the atheist or does it sit more comfortably with the theist?

Logic and reason dictate that something must come from something, that it cannot
simply arise on its own.

Wrong. Logic and reason say no such thing.

As for the rest... WE do not move the goal posts, you do.

You don't see this because you never understood logic and reason in the first place.

It's like RJHinds moronically claiming that atheists keep changing the meaning of
evolutionary theory when we point out that his straw men are straw men.
We can go back to Darwin's work and show that from it's inception, evolution
by natural selection never meant what he's claiming it meant... And that he's
arguing against a strawman [and doing that badly].

But it doesn't make any difference because RJHinds [intentionally] makes sure he
doesn't, and never has understood evolution.


In your case you come in to argument after argument and misunderstand [we suspect
deliberately] what was said and then have page after page of arguments where we
try to show you that you have the wrong end of the stick, during which you accuse
us of moving the goal posts, or similar.


It really doesn't matter that you can't see it, anyone with even a basic understanding
of logic and English will be able to easily tell that it is you that is wrong.
And it's generally for them that I post.

You are almost certainly a lost cause, but perhaps an instructional one... maybe.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This is exactly the crux of the issue: the atheist considers the weight of truth on his side owing to his conviction that his argument is based upon something immovable, immutable.

The theist believes the same thing.

Issues arise, however, when the atheist attempts to employ logic, reason or even the occasional "scientific method" but fails first to ...[text shortened]... son/science there: in the corner of the atheist or does it sit more comfortably with the theist?

This is exactly the crux of the issue: the atheist considers the weight of truth on his side owing to his conviction that his argument is based upon something immovable, immutable.

The theist believes the same thing.

Nope, that is just another silly caricature of yours. Even strong atheists typically do not think their position is based on "something immovable, immutable". Many of them just think they have good arguments based on solid reasons; but they do not take their positions to be indefeasible. That's precisely why, in the course of debate, they will explicitly ask for countervailing considerations, promoting confluence of ideas that can enhance understanding. This is simply typical of any positions that are built on a respect of sound reasoning and honest inquiry; and that you consistently fail to understand these points does not say much about your own methods of position-building and maintenance, at least in this particular area of discourse and inquiry. Positions that are built responsibly on reasons are of course amenable to revision in the light of new reasons, since they stand imminently responsive to new reasons. It is positions built on epistemologically irresponsible 'faith' that are immovable or immutable, since they are not responsive to new reasons, having not been built squarely on them in the first place.

The same exact thing goes for many, many theists as well. There are many theists out there who actually have theistic arguments and considerations worth taking seriously. And they do not take their positions to be immovable or immutable either: rather, they also stand amenable to reason. You're not one of them, but I know many such theists. So, you're just wrong both ways here, and you do disservice to the many persons out there, on both sides of the fence, who take debate on these matters seriously.

So, please do not presume to project your own irresponsibilities and failings onto your interlocutors (not to mention, fellow theists of yours as well). Did you ever think that the problem here may just be an inefficacy on your part when it comes to supporting your stance, rather than some failing on the part of other parties to properly form and maintain their own stances? After having been on here for many years and debated with you many, many times, I have to be honest: you stink at these sorts of debates. I mean, just look at a couple recent examples. I presented two recent threads, specifically designed to foster discussion on two specific arguments against theistic conceptions that include your own (one regarding an inductive version of the problem of evil; the other regarding the problem of divine hiddenness). Your responses to these argument have been awesomely terrible. I mean, you cannot even seem to understand what the premises in the arguments even assert to begin with; and, what's much worse, even when you are shown to be wrong in their interpretation you persist in misrepresenting the arguments. The counter-arguments you have provided are some of the worst I have seen. I would say in your inability to objectively consider and dissect such arguments; coupled with the vocal way in which you declaim on the matters; you stand in rare company. Off the top of my head, perhaps only knighmeister rivals you in this regard in the history of this forum. The good news is that there have been other theists worth taking seriously in this forum; ones that can actually follow an argument at least.

So, I do think BDP raises a good question here: why would one continue to debate with the likes of you? It is a good question, and I will have to give it some thought. If I start a thread asking for confluence of ideas, then I have some responsibility to follow up with those who participate and lend a voice to the discussion. On the other hand, that responsibility only reaches so far.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Logic and reason dictate that something must come from something, that it cannot
simply arise on its own.

Wrong. Logic and reason say no such thing.

As for the rest... WE do not move the goal posts, you do.

You don't see this because you never understood logic and reason in the first place.

It's like RJHinds moronically claim ...[text shortened]... hat I post.

You are almost certainly a lost cause, but perhaps an instructional one... maybe.

Wrong. Logic and reason say no such thing.
Now there's a counter-argument worth celebrating.
Are you trying to say logic and reason allow for something to come from nothing?

As for the rest... WE do not move the goal posts, you do.
As has been demonstrated within this forum, you have no support for the claim.

You don't see this because you never understood logic and reason in the first place.
Ah.
More objective analysis, I see.
Posts like this serve to support my contentions.

Originally posted by LemonJello

This is exactly the crux of the issue: the atheist considers the weight of truth on his side owing to his conviction that his argument is based upon something immovable, immutable.

The theist believes the same thing.

Nope, that is just another silly caricature of yours. Even strong atheists typically do not think their position is ...[text shortened]... and lend a voice to the discussion. On the other hand, that responsibility only reaches so far.

Nope, that is just another silly caricature of yours.
But of course.
All that is ever offered is silly caricature, right?
And, right in line with your never-wavering commitment to objectivity... emotional insults.

But I'll consider your objection, nonetheless.

I characterize the atheist as one who considers his opinions as based upon something immovable, immutable to which you say 'not true.'
That brings up the question: are logic, reason, science immovable?
Are they not immutable in the sense of providing the standards by which a position comes into being?
Does not the atheist lay claim to holding all of his positions insofar as the positions stand up to the rigors of those disciplines?

If so, then your charge of "silly caricature" is in error.
If not, what are the standards by which an atheist becomes convinced to hold a position?

There are many theists out there who actually have theistic arguments and considerations worth taking seriously.
I wonder how you were able to type that sentence, knowing you have fully rejected each and every one of them put before you at every turn from every source offered you on this forum.

I mean, just look at a couple recent examples.
I was paying attention then; in review I don't change my initial objections.
You reject the objections--- not because you have "new reasons" or better information, but because you reject the premise of a God who is there.
When characteristics of the God who is there are explained to you, you pronounce them nonsense.
When the arguments you offer have weaknesses and fatal flaws, you refuse to see them, instead launching into overly complex (and ultimately irrelevant to the point) dissertations on exactly the level of stupidity resides in my addled brain.

And that tack is the least effective in any debate: to question the other person's reading comprehension, to doubt their ability to cognitively recognize the issue at hand, to decry their overall expression as unworthy of consideration.

It's almost as though (and I might be wrong here) some of the atheists here are so caught up in their practiced moves they lack the ability to express themselves in a manner more consistent with 99.9% of the remaining forum, i.e., conversationally.