You seem to be very defensive about the ego checks. I don't know how you can say that I'm letting ego get in my way. I haven't said anything to you ego-related. I understand if you say that I'm an idiot (ok you have) or something like that if I don't agree with what you're writing, but when I disagree, it's not because of ego. I call you out on your ego-trip because you're constantly berating me for something you don't understand. I know it makes you feel better or superior to do so.
I pretty much pointed out step-by-step your various uses of ego. So this essentially amounts to an outright lie on your part (nothing unexpected). This is also a combination of a Strawman and an Ad Hominem. I did not at any point say that you were an idiot because I disagreed with you. Admittedly you do certainly seem to be an idiot, but there are very valid reasons to reach such a conclusion. But at no point did I say that it was because I disargeed with you. As for your claims of "ego-trip" it's still an unsubstantiated opinion that you have done nothing to back up. Whereas I presented quite a bit of evidence to show your ego in action (which you apparenly had no defence against). Of course since you just make things up as you go along this is to be expected.
One other note of ego that we can clearley see in your writing as well is that you continue to accuse me of not understanding, as opposed to even considering the possiblity that (as I mentioned before) I do understand and just don't agree. You're carrying the implication in this that my difference of opinion is simply a matter of a failure of understanding on my part, and that if I did understand I would agree with you. Nothing ego-driven about that is there?
And for the record, no it does make me feel superior. In the same way that I would not feel superior if I beat on an invalid.
For Alzael:
Discussion on "other forms of proof".
Your stance - statistics, data, evidence, and proof are always necessary when discussing ANYTHING, less their response be "pointless and stupid".
No, this is not what I said. You're creating a Strawman (nothing new) and a very stupid one.
What I said was that those things are needed to differentiate fantasy from reality. Without these, anything you say is utterly subjective (ie. effectively made-up). Your responses are largely pointless and stupid because they serve no point at furthering the conversation. They are only attempts at you to further dodge what is being said.
My response - I'd agree if we were talking about building a bridge, making a jet engine, constructing a house, making a case against a murderer, and a long list of other things. But, this is not the case for ALL discussions.
Again you're responding to a made-up Strawman.
What if there are answers that lie in the gray area that you don't allow due to your rigid classifications?
Then how do you know what those answers are? If you're changing the classifications as you want then anything can answer anything. So you never have any actual answers. The grey area is grey because it's truth is uncertain. Once you know if it's true or not, it stops being grey. That's the point of science and evidence. To examine the grey and find out whether it belongs in the black or the white so that we know what it is. Otherwise the grey is useless.
You're trying to criticize a method that you don't even understand the basics of. Otherwise you would have known better than to even say this
An answer in the "grey area" is an answer that is only an answer in so far as it's the one that you want to accept. Where is the value in an answer that can't actually answer the question?
Well for one, it makes it a lot easier for YOU to be correct, and thus, I concede that point.
No, it makes it
POSSIBLE for me to be correct,as opposed to your way which can never give a correct answer. Again, how do you differentiate truth from fantasy? That's the thing with grey areas, they're neither true nor false, otherwise they wouldn't be grey areas. That's why we try to figure out whether they belong on one side or the other. The alternative is to never know whether they're true or not.
Again, not only are you misrepresenting the point, you don't even grasp it. Or alternatively, you do understand it and this is just you being dishonest by attempting to misrepresent it.
You need statistics, data, evidence, and proof to continue. I've already said that I won't be able to offer those things in the way that you'd like, so there you go.
Then the question still remains, Why should anyone care?
But, even after conceding that point and trying to move on, you revert back to square one, call me names, don't continue, and ask why I'm posting on this message board. That's why you need an ego check.
You have yet to even respond to the points. All you do is keep bringing up "ego". Again using it purely as a dismissive without any support for the statement. And why you are posting on the message board was a very valid question (which is another thing that you refuse to answer).
And, the reason that some theists disregard statistics, data, evidence and proof is that there are other ways to interpret statistics, data, evidence, and "proof". Here are some examples.
Oh this should be stunning.......
Anxiety when flying on Airplanes - Statistics, data, evidence and proof (SDEP) clearly indicate that flying is much safer than driving. Then why do most people feel more anxiety when flying than driving?
Sigh, that's not interpreting the data. Peoples anxieties have nothing to do with the data. You're conflating two entirely separate things into a complete mess. The fact that people
feel more anxiety during flying does not change the data in anyway. The anxiety is a purely emotional response to the act of flying itself, not based on the data. If there were another interpretation of the data then one should be able to look at it and (using the data itself) come to an alternate conclusion that the data also supports.
People feeling more anxiety is a vague and nebulous concept with many different potential explanations for it which would vary depending on the person. This is why we separate
fantasy from
reality. A person can
feel that the plane they're on is dangrerous as much as they want. However that does not make it
true.
As a sidenote, it is possible (and common) to know something intellectually and still have irrational emotional-trigger responses to it. Everytime I cross the High-Level brdge I immediately start to feel slightly panicked even though I know there is no way the bridge is going to collapse. This is because I have a strong dislike of high places. It has nothing to do with interpreting data.
Incorrect diagnoses - SDEP can be the same, yet different diagnoses can be made
Due to human error yes. However this is opposed to what? Picking a diagnosis out of a hat? Or just sitting down and thinking about what diagnosis you want the patient to have?
This seems to be another one of your pitiful attempts at a strawman. I never said that data was the source for ultimate knowledge. What I said was that it was the only way which we have found that let's us separate fantasy from reality. So your example here makes no sense, unless you really are advocating doctors just picking a diagnosis out of a hat to treat their patients.
relationships - need I say more?
You probably should if you want to actually make a coherent point. You were trying to show different ways of interpreting data. Just saying "Relationships" does not mean much.
My point was more to the effect that in light of negative SDEP (mainly abuse), there are people out there who remain with their sig other. You see it ALL the time! Why? Are there other factors other than SDEP controlling the mind of the abused?
There are many factors that apply into such decisions. We understand from our knowledge of how the human brain works in regards to phenomenon such as Stockholm syndrome and Battered Wife syndrome. We understand (through data and research) just how these relationships form.
What I find amusing is that you mention this when it actually goes towards making my case. The reason that these relationships tend to continue (other than one party just being too afraid to leave) is often due to an unwillingness to face the data. The people in these situations usually sustain their mental stability by ignoring the facts and the reality of the situation and believing instead what they want to believe to make themselves happy.
Sometimes they convince themselves that their significant other is simply "sick" or just going through a bad time and all he reallys needs is a little help to get over it. The other promises to reform and they want to believe that its true because it's hard to lose a relationship that one is so emotionally invested in. Religious beliefs are also a very common reason as many religions still put a huge emphasis on the married relationship.
There's also just the matter of love. Just because your other half is being a douche doesn't necessarily mean that feelings of love go away.
There are also other matters such as econimic and social dependance, the existence of children, etc. that are also major factors however they aren't really relevant to the discussion at this moment.
The point is that most of the people (men and women) in those kinds of relationships aren't looking at the reality of their situation. They are trying to retreat into what they want to be true and twisting things around to help them justify their continued presence in the relationship.
This isn't an example of reinterpreting date. It's an example of ignoring it.
Again, you're trying to criticize something that you're supremely ignorant about. It doesn't help any arguments that you're trying to make about the value (or lack thereof) of evidence when you don't even understand how it works. Hell, I had to actually explain basic human communication previously because you couldn't grasp how it applied here. Although you clearly didn't read or understand it.
All of your examples only take into account the most superficial data.
Football games - If I gave you all of the statistics of 100 football games and didn't reveal the score, would you be able to tell me who won?
Not having played, or even really caring about football, probably not. However if you are giving me all of the statistics of the games, that should include the score, shouldn't it?
If I did know anything about football (or cared) then yes, I probably could work it out with a fairly reasonable degree of accuracy.
Gore vs. Bush - According to SDEP, Gore got more votes. Why did Bush win?
Not being American (or caring about the Bush/Gore election) I have nothing to say about this one.
Toyota recalls - SDEP indicates that Toyotas are safe and reliable, yet an entire smear campaign was effectively run to the tune of a recalling of the cars in question and millions in expense.
So if people are lied to, and if they don't bother to look at the actual data to find out what the truth is, they'll reach the wrong conclusions.................your point being?
So, when discussing an intangible like "God", your requirement for SDEP will more likely fall into the gray area than the black and white. If you don't allow for gray, there's no sense going any further.
However since you can never leave grey, there's really no point in starting, is there? After all grey can never actually amount to anything. More to the point however, yours isn't actually "grey". Yours is better described as Mflewm. Because you've arbitrarily changed the colours (ie words) to mean whatever you want them to. So the actual end result is some colour scheme that exists only in your mind.
And you still fail to respond to the main questions. But again, that's nothing new.
But, it hardly warrants insults like calling someone stupid.
I didn't call you stupid. I pointed out things that you said as being stupid. That is because they were, and a lot of it continues to be.
Also I should point out that since you're starting to argue things that were entirely not the point of anything or things that were said, you are coming across as such. Either that or you're being intentionally misleading.
Based on your responses, you don't understand what I'm trying to say.
No, you're the one that is missing everything. By this point it has to be intentional.
I'm trying to say that the point of no sale when atheists and theists talk is when the atheist demands SDEP - which is really not something I'm trying to say to support an argument of mine or not. I'm merely trying to explain why theists can believe without needing SDEP.
Yes, I know what you are trying to do.
Instead of taking this note and filing it away, your ego comes into play and you say that what I, YY, thinks makes sense doesn't matter.
Again, the ego dismissive. It's much easier than actually thinking and presenting an argument, isn't it?
In regards to the part that you were quoting, what makes sense doesn't matter. You made a comment about understanding the arguments that make sense to theists and changing our arguments around to suit that. However what makes sense is not the issue of contention. The issue between theists and atheists is what is
true. An argument that would make sense to theists doesn't matter if the argument isn't true, because the goal is to get theists to accept the truth.
Your suggestion is to sway theists using emotional appeals, logical fallacies, and false platitudes. In other words the exact same things that atheists, criticize theists for doing. At that point the atheists would be playing the same stupid game. Which is not what atheists are trying to do. Fighting stupid ideas with other stupid ideas is not an effective way to go.
Yes, theists do respond to those types of arguments
but that is exactly what needs to change. So there’s no point in using them, is there?
This is why I wrote all of that which followed, to illustrate the point. Pity you didn't bother to read it.
I was speaking for (some) theists and you thought I was speaking for myself? Understanding the theist is the key to communicating with them.
I know you were speaking for some theists. However I was addressing you specifically.
Again, you're not saying anything new or original or giving any different insights into how theists think. You're not even responding to what I said, you still haven't actually dealt with the issues raised. This whole post is essentially a red herring on your part.
Why do you care? You are right and they are wrong right?
I don't know if I'm right. However I do know that I at least have a good shot at finding out if I am or not.
You may or not be correct, but requiring the same of others (when they don't care that you require this) may leave you with unfulfilled expectations. You say that without SDEP, theists are living in fantasy and not reality. Well, their fantasy world is YOUR same reality. Let's say God tells a church memeber to take a thousand fliers and put them under the windshields of cars in the parking lot. You are parked in this parking lot. The theists "fantasy" world just collided with your reality.
Notice the bold, again this is not what was said. But why should you start paying attention and stop making Strawmen now.
Yes, I am aware that their fantasy world collides with mine, you're not really making any coherent points, you know?
This is why I do this, because I have to live in a world that is constantly being polluted by that level of irrational idiocy. The reason I require the same of others is because there's nothing else I can do. How can you communicate with someone who's making things up as they go along? Even if you understand their irrationality they can just change it at a moments notice.
So, what you're saying is one religion speaks the language of (A), another the language of (B), and yet, another, the language (C). You speak (D). AB and C might never speak, but if you want to communicate with any of them, you can't keep speaking D to them! You have to learn A, B, and/or C! Believe me, not many of them will try to learn D.
This is such a tortured and poorly executed metaphor.
What I am saying, is that religion has no means of ever knowing that it's right. So instead we have several thousand different religions all convincing themselves that they're right for no reason and with no justification. However we have a means available to us that allows us to determine what is right, which religion doesn't want to use because it shows that they're wrong.
We need to start using that method.
The main reason that your anology doesn't work is because religion can't be comparable to a language because a language has to have a defined structure in order for it to work. The words have to have a meaning that people can recognize. Religion is made up in the mind of each indivudual. So it's closest comparison to any language would be gibberish. Everyone has their own "language". You would have to learn an entirely different language for every theist that you wanted to talk to. And none of those languages actually work anyways. So instead of learning billions of different languages that don't work, you have to get everyone to use the language that does (ugh, this metaphor hurts).
I pointed this out several times, in fact I took the time to explain it in several paragraphs (which you apparently didn't bother to read or understand or else we wouldn't have soemthing this dumb being said by you). Since the language that they are speaking is entirely made up words that mean whatever they want in their head, they can change the meaning to whatever suits them at any time. You can't have meaningful communication with someone who is making up their definitions as they go. That's why we have definitions.
This is why atheists communicate so poorly with theists, it's not that we don't understand why they're theists (most of the people here were theists themselves) or that they don't want to accept data and evidence (we get it), it's that every theist has an entirely different theology to work with, all of which change as soon as they decide they want to believe in something else. You have to have some basis in reality to work with before you can discuss anything.
In most subjective arguments there is still some basis for realistic comparison. If you and I both watch the same movie and you hate it while I like it, both opinions are subjective. However we still have points of comparison. We both watched the same movie so we know what happened, we know the dialogue, the actors, etc. Even though we're reaching different conclusions we still have enough of a point of reference that we can have a meaningful discussion about the pros and cons of the movie.
What you're talking about though, has so few points of reference that you've even changed the language. To go with the analogy above. It's as if you were to come up to me and wanted to talk about a french movie that you dreamed up in your head. I can't see the movie, I can't hear the voices, can't see the acting of the actors, and I can't speak even French. There's very little potential for a substantive dialogue there.
I entirely disagree. All of the bad things that have happened were due to bad people using religion to carry out their atrocities. If you say this is true of religion, you should also say this is true of Democracy.
Bad comparison to Democracy. But you miss the point. When I said that this was the core of every problem that religion has ever had, that is exactly what I meant. Because religion has no ability to tell truth from fiction, it can be used by anyone to do anything at anytime. That was one of the purposes of my example with the three religions from above. Any idea that a religion (or religious person) wants to use has the exact same evidence as any the ideas of every other, so there is no reality check. It can be used to justify any action that a person wishes to take. Saying "god wants us to kill the fags" is just as valid a position as "god wants us to enslave the Negroes" or "god wants us to be happy and love everyone".
Do bad people use religion to do bad things, absolutely. However it is the nature of religion itself that lets them so easily do it.
Now, let's see what you'll not pay attention to/misrepresent/lie about in my post this time.
