My New Year's Resolution

[skepticscott]

To hold everyone to principles of rational discussion.

[Goblinmonger]

1. Militant Atheist. n/t

[rug]

2. "I will talk to you about this topic provided the following rules are obeyed."

Thank God! I won't need to use the Ignore button for an entire year.

[edhopper]

3. Are we allowed to discuss things

by letting our intuition feel what the other person knows and sensing whether it is true?

[wryter2000]

4. Just off the top of my head

My rules for discussion:

Do not accuse me of believing in things I don't believe in. (Such as a white-bearded fairy in the sky.)

Do not accuse me of not accepting proven science. (Such as the theory of evolution -- and yes, I know what a theory is -- heliocentrism, and the big bang.)

Stop trying to convert me. I have no interest in converting you.

[skepticscott]

5. I have no interest in converting you

Your own enlightenment (or lack of it) is your own business. But attempts to pollute the information stream with religious or spiritual woo-woo (whether it involves a big sky daddy or not) will be met with appropriate counterarguments and debunking, without regard for your delicate feelings or "respect" for beliefs which are patently nonsensical.

[DonCoquixote]

9. Regard for "delicate feelings"

It is one thing to say that bullshit needs to be affirmatively denied and debunked. I will even say that most religious types tend to have less concern for other's feelings. However, there is one rule that many attribute to Christianity, though Confucius said it several centuries earlier : "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." If you do not show courtesy, you have no rational reason to expect any, and if you do not expect any, you have no rational reason to be surprised if your talks attract shouting instead of thinking.

[darkstar3]

10. Read me.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/darkstar3/1

[DonCoquixote]

12. Ok, allow me to define myself further

I could care less what you think on the position of metaphysics; to quote jefferson "it neither picks my pocket or breaks my leg." My position of respect comes in when

a) people use aggressive insults

and or

B) advocate that because someone has a metaphysical belief, that they deserve harm/punishment/harassment/ aka the "short end of the stick."

As long as people keep civil, I have no problems, but sadly, there is a point where everybody, and there are example from all creeds, or lacks thereof, start to say that "we have a right to treat X bad because we disagree with x."

Note, this does not means passively accept. There was a lack of violence in the resistance shown by Martin Luther King and Gandhi, but their resistance was not passive.

[skepticscott]

14. Well, if you define "treat X badly"

as telling X that they're full of shit when they really are full of shit, and completely, demonstrably wrong, or arguing with blatant intellectual dishonesty, then you've proven my point from above.

And if you can cite examples of people on this board being harmed, punished or harassed (as separate from their unsupported statements, ideas and beliefs being run down, or their feewings being hurt), I'm sure we'd all love to see them.

[DonCoquixote]

28. OK, to define and give examples

define treat x badly:
You are able to tell someone they are wrong without calling them evil, or adovocating harm to them. If you simply state "this idea is wrong, I disagree with you" that is one thing, if you go ahead and say "you are an inbred xtian yahoo and if I was in charge, people like you would have NO say in government.) Note, I am not, repeat, not saying you have done that, but it is not hard to look at this board and not hear people of all stripes say that because someone disagrees with them, they deserve ridicule and harassment. I may not be a Hindu or a Baptist, and would not agree with Martin Luther King or Mahatma Gandhi theologically, but if I were to say "Gandhi nor King should have any say in government because they believe in religion" then I would be showing the behavior that I was trying to say is undesirable.

As far as examples: We have read examples on this board where people advocate getting rid of the South, despite the fact that there are many Southern Liberals working (like the ones that changed North Carolina and Florida from Red to blue states in the 2008 election.) Granted, there have been no serious "kick the south out movements" (yet) but when you advocate a SPECIFIC action against people based on their religious beliefs, then there is an example of something undesirable.

[darkstar3]

31. You haven't given examples.

So far you've obtained the level of "I read somewhere" or "some people say". Your example of the South is not only off-topic, but also false, as so far I've not seen anyone advocating for actively or forcefully getting rid of the south, but rather letting them secede if they choose to do so.

Unless, of course, you have ACTUAL examples.

[DonCoquixote]

33. Said threads

have been purged, as threads are..though when they come up, I will make a point of sending them.

As far as Martin Luther King and the Dalai Lama, they are two well known clergymen who have both spoken out on political matters, one enough that he got a Nobel. How would you handle them if they were on DU? Would you disagree with them on political matters and work with them on others, or would you attack them? That is not sarcasm, I am actually curious to see how you would respond.

[darkstar3]

34. How convenient for you.

As for Mssrs. King and Lama, your invocation of them is a logical fallacy (argument from authority/wisdom of the ancients) and your question is another logical fallacy known as false choice.

[skepticscott]

37. So AGAIN

Where are your examples of people on this board being harmed, punished or harassed?? Where are your examples of people being called evil over matters of OPINION (as opposed to things like defending child rape). Where are your examples of people being ridiculed over legitimate disagreements on matters of opinion, as opposed to being ridiculed for advocating demonstrable falsehoods, even after they have been demonstrated to them?

Your examples are all of your own invention, I dare say. If you can't respond with something concrete, please stop wasting bandwidth.

[DonCoquixote]

29. let me ask you this

Is it possible to disagree with someone without attacking them as people? If you disagree, do you simply let it go and ignore the other person if they cannot "agree to disagree", or do you take it further, and if so, where?

[skepticscott]

35. Yes. Is it possible for people

to distinguish between having their ideas and arguments attacked and being attacked as people? From your questions and the behavior of some on this board, I wonder.

[DonCoquixote]

36. My questions?

I did not attack you as a person. As far as the "some on this board", yes, I too wonder, although I believe that it should not be impossible to "agree to disagree."

[skepticscott]

38. Please cite for me

EXACTLY where I said that you attacked me as a person. I did no such thing. If you can't discuss with some semblance of intellectual honesty, please go away.

[DonCoquixote]

42. Your quote

Captials mine


to distinguish between having their ideas and arguments attacked and being attacked as people? FROM YOUR QUESTIONS..

My question is this, did you interpret my questions as some sort of attack?

[skepticscott]

48. Your questions made me wonder

whether people on this board and elsewhere can make that very elementary distinction. AGAIN, please cite for me exactly where I accused YOU of attacking ME as a person.

[DonCoquixote]

49. Your words, caps mine

From YOUR questions and the behavior of some on this board, I wonder.

If you did not intend to make that personal, then you failed to see that it could be. This thread is about communication, you may not have intended to make it personal, but it came off that way.

Now, since we apparently have gotten to the point where we do not communicate, the next time I plan to respond is when I ollect the threads where some people, who THINK they are doing the atheist/agnostic cause good, use words/insults that will ensure any victory won is a Pyhrric one.

[darkstar3]

50. You are either deliberately misrepresenting what SS said,

or you have simply been incapable of following this discussion from the beginning.

Let's back up to the beginning of where this digression started and see if I can ask SS's question in a different way. Do you think it is possible for people here to distinguish between attacks on the arguments they offer up in this forum and attacks on their person?

[DonCoquixote]

57. Your quote

"Let's back up to the beginning of where this digression started and see if I can ask SS's question in a different way. Do you think it is possible for people here to distinguish between attacks on the arguments they offer up in this forum and attacks on their person?"

To answer that question, yes.

My argument was not against that idea, it was against the agression that was used. I do not know what either you or ss intended, you may have intended to write something completely without agression: I cannot read your minds. However, my point is this, and only this: when you use words that are laden with agression, you will not get people to listen to you.

Want an example , the part where he wrote "fweeings." Also the word "woo" was thrown around: cbayer did a beter job of illustrating the snark used in this very thread. My point was never about what you or ss thought, but when SS said, and I quote, he would "HOLD" people accountable to a scheme, it begs the question: by what authority does he, or you, or me, or anybody else, have the authority to HOLD anyone accountable? The only ones on this forum who that that authority are the admins and mods, and even they, in the form of cbayer, chose to slip away, rather than use any of the authority she has.

If you claim any authority over people, expect people to ask you why you claimed it.

If you claim that you do not have to care about people's "feewings", expect people not to care about yours.

It is one thing to affirmatively argue your point: you can say "I do not believe in God, nor anything remotely metaphysical, nor anything that is called spiritual." But when you add snark that is not needed, you will not sell your point, and if you cannot sell your point, how the heck do you expect to "HOLD" people to anything (again, do not deny that was the word used, and if you say that is not an aggressive word, I suggest you look at the dictionary.

Now, there are atheist and scientist more than capable of expounding the skeptic point of view without snark or aggression. I can suggest Carl Sagan, though I would really recommend Thomas Henry Huxley. He expounds the atheist point of view with prose equal to a poet. Neither of them needed snark to express their points. My note was not with your message, and not about you personally, but a point that the words used could bring negative baggage, withe the fundamentalists would gladly use as ammunition.

[darkstar3]

58. You have a gift for misrepresentation.

Let's start with your tried and true employment of the "tone argument," which you started on all the way back in #9. This old dodge has two different problems. The first is that complaining about HOW people say things is a way for you to avoid answering WHAT people say. The second is what I tried to show you in my earlier linked journal entry: Attempting to claim that someone should offer you some level of respect for your point of view is an unwarranted defense mechanism, not to mention a logical fallacy known as special pleading.

The funny thing is, you're complaining about the words "feewings" and "woo", but those didn't appear until AFTER, and even IN RESPONSE TO, your invocation of the tone argument.

Now, as for misrepresentation, you cannot honestly believe that SkepticScott really thought he had some kind of authority over you. You want so badly to engage in your tone complaint that you have seriously twisted the OPs intent based on a single word. This parsing defense is simply a method of grasping at straws. I think it QUITE clear from the OP that the only way "hold" was meant was the following:

"If you intend to debate with me, then I will hold you to the principles outlined above, which means that I will terminate our discussion if at any time you violate those simple principles."

Now, does that statement sound in any way like SS, or anyone who agreed with him, was being aggressive toward you? No, of course it doesn't.

Oh, and one last thing: There's a bit of delicious irony wrapped up in your precious "tone argument". Atheists rarely like the tone believers use, but I don't see them complaining about it every other day.

[skepticscott]

13. I this case, "delicate feelings"

means curling up into a little ball and accusing of meanness anyone who criticizes religion or religious beliefs in any way, a habit that has been all too common on this board.

And as far as the "golden rule" goes, if I were spouting demonstrably silly "beliefs", I would expect to be told so, and I would certainly not expect deference or "respect" for blatant foolishness on my part. "Respect" or "courtesy" do not mean treating nonsense and BS as if they deserve to be taken seriously, especially not when the same forms of them are being trotted out for the hundredth time.

[WolverineDG]

30. Oh, they've already covered that

When people treat atheists the same way atheists treat them, atheists get to claim that people of faith "hate" them. It always strikes me as funny that such self-proclaimed superior, rational people can't figure out that what they're really experiencing is the taste of their own medicine.


dg

[darkstar3]

32. If atheists treated people of faith in the same way they were treated...

There would be no people of faith in government.

All religious billboards would be greeted with derision, graffiti, and endless opposition-based media coverage.

Religious participation in national holidays would be ridiculed.

Public religious affiliation would endanger jobs and social lives.

I don't think I need to illustrate any further the depth of your false equivalency. I also don't think that "A better than average attorney" should use the "you started it" defense.

[WolverineDG]

44. Perhaps you should rethink your whole approach

because obviously, the "let's be as rude & disrespectful as possible" ain't winning over the crowds.

What's that they say about doing the same thing over & over & expecting a different result? :think:

dg

[darkstar3]

45. I think you just broke my projection meter.

Does that constant shifting between ad homs work in the courtroom?

[WolverineDG]

59. Funny thing I've noticed

anytime someone says anything that atheists don't like (such as pointing out that, as a general matter, people responding negatively to those who act like rude, condescending jerks has nothing to do with being taught to "hate" atheists in church), all of a sudden they're making ad hominems & straw men. :eyes:

dg

[darkstar3]

60. Another "tone argument".

Color me wildly unimpressed.

Oh, and logical fallacies are problematic no matter when you employ them.

[Goblinmonger]

61. I would venture to guess that you have not seen

"as rude & disrespectful as possible" from any atheist on here. I know that I have not even scratched the surface of what I could dish out if I wanted to.

Do you have some examples of people being "as rude & disrespectful as possible" because I'd like to see what that looks like to you? You can PM them to me and I will post them as my own so that it is I that gets in trouble and not you.

[skepticscott]

39. "Their own medicine"?

Look down through history and how the religious have treated atheists as compared to how atheists have "treated" the religious and tell me why your claim isn't worthy of anything but a belly laugh

[darkstar3]

40. But, but,

STALIN!!!

*bwack*

[skepticscott]

41. Mao!

Pol Pot!

[WolverineDG]

43. Dude, you were pwned by cbayer

You already broke your own rules, so this discussion is over.

:rofl:

dg

[darkstar3]

46. Oh he did?

Where, exactly?

[skepticscott]

47. Your response is why

rules 1 and 2 are in the OP. Your contention was false, and you shift to a different (also false) argument.

Are you going to even try to support your claim and show where cbayer can claim any intellectual points before he turned tail, or are you going to shift the argument again?

[cbayer]

54. Turned tail? Hardly. Please see my explanation for discontinuing the discussion below.

[skepticscott]

56. I saw your explanation in #26

What I didn't see was what you claimed, namely "objections raised to my participation in this thread due to my moderator status". I saw a question raised concerning your perceived objectivity in #21, but that isn't remotely the same as an objection to your overall participation. Wouldn't you agree? Or have I missed something here? Maybe you'll tell us that several people objected in private, but it certainly wasn't me, and I'm the one you were responding to in post 20.

[wryter2000]

11. Then, I suggest you go find the polluters

and go after them. I don't deny that there are plenty. You won't find them among liberal Christians.

Editted to add: You've already violated my first request. I don't post woo-woo anywhere. Neither does John Shelby Spong or any number of enlightened Christians.

[skepticscott]

16. If you read carefully

you'll notice that I accused you of nothing. I merely stated what my rational and justifiable response would be IF you or anyone else did what I mentioned. BTW, no one ever thinks THEY are posting woo-woo...it invariably has to be pointed out to them.

And "You won't find them among liberal Christians"?? :rofl:
If you spent any time at all on this board, you'd be embarrassed to make such a statement.

[darkstar3]

17. Spong's sample essay on "The Resurrection" is enough to show you incorrect.

The man obviously recognizes that resurrection as it is typically depicted is quite impossible, but his workaround is nothing but reinterpreted woo.

[darkstar3]

6. If everyone abided by this, it would shut down the forum.

Don't get me wrong, I've bookmarked it for future linking, but I don't think it's going to catch on nearly as well as it should.

[skepticscott]

7. I don't disagree with you

But fortunately for the forum, there are plenty of people here who are constitutionally incapable of arguing rationally and coherently. I think we can count on them to keep us busy.

[cbayer]

8. Can YOU envision anything that would change your mind on this topic?

:shrug:

[skepticscott]

15. What "topic" are you referring to, specifically?

About what specific claim or idea are you asking me whether I might change my mind, given sufficient evidence?

[cbayer]

18. Based on the title of this piece and your responses so far, I would suppose what you

wish to debate is atheism and christianity. And my question was not whether you might change your mind given sufficient evidence. It was the first question from your algorithm.

Can you envision anything that would change your mind on this topic?

[skepticscott]

19. If you're asking me

whether anything would make me reconsider my atheistic worldview, of course. I and many other atheists, here and elsewhere, have described that kind of evidence at length, and it's readily available if you care to expend the effort to answer your own question.

[cbayer]

20. I was just checking to see if you would hold yourself to the same standard set in the

first question.


I might also add to your list that using pejorative terms and negative stereotypes is not how rational beings have meaningful debate. Terms such as "spiritual or religious woo woo", "big sky daddy", "patently nonsensical", "demonstrably silly beliefs", and "blatant foolishness", all used by you already in this thread, would indicate to me that you could not honestly answer yes to the first question in the algorithm. Not only do your beliefs seems fixed, you express open hostility towards those that do not share them.

In light of that, and using your own chart, this is not a discussion and I will not talk to you about this subject.


Have a great new year!

:hi:

[darkstar3]

21. What a remarkable show of objectivity for someone with that icon next to their name.

[cbayer]

22. It is not clear to me whether you meant that sarcastically or not, but based on your

journal entry about respect, I will assume that you did not.

[darkstar3]

23. If you say so.

[skepticscott]

24. Since you seem to be calling me a liar

I'll provide an example of what you're apparently too lazy to look for yourself.

Put 25 Christians from the military who have lost limbs in the Iraq occupation in a room together. Have them pray to their god, in the name of Jesus Christ, to restore their limbs back to the way they were. Then try it with another 25, and another, and another, as many times as you like. If even one of those Christians has their limb grow back on the spot (an easy feat for the Xstian god, as typically portrayed and believed in), I and every other atheist in the world will be reconsidering our stance. And if some unseen hand had stopped those planes from crashing into the WTC and lowered them safely to the ground, the same thing. And those are just two examples out of many that could be, and have been described.

And I consider "patently nonsensical", "demonstrably silly" and "blatantly foolish" to be perfectly appropriate and justifiable characterizations of religiously-based claims that the whole world and everything in it was created less than 10,000 years ago, or that bread and wine turn into literal, actual flesh and blood during the Eucharist. Just to name two.

Play hit-and-run and dodge discussion of substantive points if you like, but you aren't fooling anyone.

[cbayer]

25. For the record, I am not calling you a liar. I am saying that, imo, you may not fulfill

the criteria laid out in the first question.

And, for that reason, we may not be able to have a rational exchange of ideas.

I would also propose that the argument you provide about those who have lost limbs or planes being set on the ground neither proves nor disproves anything at all concerning the existence of a god. It may speak to the ability or desire of such a being to actively intervene in the events on earth, but nothing else. That being said, I would say your argument is faulty in this regard. According to your algorithm, you would need to stop using it as an argument against the existence of a god.

Your second example of literal interpretations of biblical text, I would agree is not logical and defies what is known. That is a valid argument against the literal translation of biblical text, but, again, does not prove or disprove the existence of a god.

I don't know why you think I am trying to fool anyone. I have not even stated what my position is concerning theism.

[skepticscott]

27. Well, let's see

You asked me: Can you envision anything that would change your mind on this topic? (which is the first question in the algorithm)

I answered: If you're asking me whether anything would make me reconsider my atheistic worldview, of course. (In other words, I answered clearly and unequivocally, yes)

You responded: Terms such as "spiritual or religious woo woo", "big sky daddy", "patently nonsensical", "demonstrably silly beliefs", and "blatant foolishness", all used by you already in this thread, would indicate to me that you could not honestly answer yes to the first question in the algorithm. (in other words, you considered that my answer of "yes" was not honest, i.e. a lie)

Want to tell me again how you weren't calling me a liar?

As far as the examples I provided, I can see you're fond of moving goalposts, but it was you who attributed to me the idea that anything is "proven"...I said no such thing. Nothing in scientific, rational inquiry is ever "proven" (if you don't have a grasp of that, this discussion will probably be a waste of time for me to continue). You asked for examples of things that would make me reconsider my atheistic worldview, and I provided them.

And in case you missed it, I was not using the citations of creationism and transsubstantiation as evidence for or against the existence of a god. I was using them as examples of religious claims that qualify as "patently nonsensical", "demonstrably silly" and "blatantly foolish" (as you seem to agree they are, despite your earlier characterization of these terms as "negative stereotypes"). If you refuse to argue with intellectual integrity, and instead insist on attributing statements and positions to me that are not accurate, my New Years Resolution kicks in.

[cbayer]

26. As there have been objections raised to my participation in this thread due to my

moderator status, I am going to withdraw from the conversation.

[Bad Thoughts]

51. How is this a 'New Year's Resolution'?

Despite the language it is couched in, your statement seems designed more to insist other people make changes based upon your expectations rather than you reforming your own methods of discussion. Moreover, it seems explicitly designed to problematize civil discourse rather than foster it.

[skepticscott]

52. My statement means that

I will cease having patience with people who argue with illogic and intellectual dishonesty. And it will apply only in cases where "civil discourse" has already been problematized by such tactics.

Perhaps you'd care to share your own insights on how all of this has been "explicitly designed" for the purpose you claim.

[Evoman]

53. Ha. Good luck with that, See you in other forums, cuz rational discussions don't belong in RT.

[skepticscott]

55. Who knows, you may be right

but it wouldn't be a New Years Resolution if it didn't start with unreasonable optimism :)