Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Are you the only one who gets to respond based on implication, then?
He never said that atheism in and of itself led atheists to believe those things.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
quote:
That is why we have science, and novels, and friendships, and poetry, and practical jokes, and photography, and a sense of awe at the immensity of time and the planet’s natural history, and walks with loved ones along the Huckleberry Trail, and atheist friends who keep kosher because, well just because, and passionate reverence for both those heroes who believed and those who did not, and have all this without needing a god to stitch together the tapestry of life.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
quote:Yep; and this gets to the crux of the issue.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But I've always been more interested in what kind of person a theist is, than in what kind of theist a person is if you catch my drift. The same is true for me in regards to atheists.
quote:This is a false argument, because there are alternatives to religious faith for drawing comfort, meaning, and solace from tragedies great and small. Religion does not hold the corner market on these things, just the corner market on the mouthpiece.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
quote:From the Wikipedia entry on Straw Man:
Theism can say that in response to a tragedy, it offers some sort of meaning: this too shall pass, they're in Heaven now, God has a plan, many potential responses. Tell me what atheism offers, in and of itself, in response to a tragedy Jutsa.
quote:That is what else is out there. It is in no way connected to or dependant on the existence or lack of a religious faith. Your straw man was in making a highly shortened but essentially same argument D'Souza made.
You can find us next week in the bloodied classrooms of a violated campus, trying to piece our thoughts and lives and studies back together.
With or without a belief in a god, with or without your asinine bigotry, we will make progress, we will breathe life back into our university, I will succeed in explaining this or that point, slowly, eventually, in a ham-handed way, at risk of tears half-way through, my students will come to feel comfortable again in a classroom with no windows or escape route, and hell yes we will prevail.
You see Mr D’Souza, I am an atheist professor at Virginia Tech and a man of great faith. Not faith in your god. Faith in my people.
quote:No.
So how's about you taking that back, please?
quote:I couldn't say what straw man Dinesh D'Souza engaged in. I haven't read what he wrote. I read what the atheist professor had to say though, and appreciated it.
Your original statement was the same straw man that Dinesh D'Souza engaged in.
quote:You'll have to point where I said that the things you quoted aren't present in atheists. I didn't say that at all. Show me where I said that, Jutsa. Show me. You can't show me, because I didn't say that. "Faith in my people" is something completely seperate from atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with having faith in people whatsoever, so you can hardly bring that up and point to it as something atheism brings to the situation.
That is what else is out there. It is in no way connected to or dependant on the existence or lack of a religious faith. Your straw man was in making a highly shortened but essentially same argument D'Souza made.
quote:Read what I actually said. I dare you. Respond to the things I said, for a change.
But I've always been more interested in what kind of person a theist is, than in what kind of theist a person is if you catch my drift. The same is true for me in regards to atheists.
quote:Sure. Atheism is a statement of unbelief, and is really a word which shouldn't even exist.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
All I am saying is precisely what I said: atheism, in and of itself, does not offer anything in response to tragedies such as the one which happened at VT.
quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
"Faith in my people" is something completely seperate from atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with having faith in people whatsoever,
quote:I didn't bring it up. You did. Hence the strawman.
so you can hardly bring that up and point to it as something atheism brings to the situation.
quote:And what you are saying is a regurgitated form of what D'Souza said. Hence straw man.
All I am saying is precisely what I said: atheism, in and of itself, does not offer anything in response to tragedies such as the one which happened at VT.
quote:I suggest you begin thinking about what you say before you say them. For instance:
quote:Read what I actually said. I dare you. Respond to the things I said, for a change.
But I've always been more interested in what kind of person a theist is, than in what kind of theist a person is if you catch my drift. The same is true for me in regards to atheists.
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh on April 21st at 10:07 PM:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
quote:This is not dependant on whether one believes in a god or gods. Solace in the face of tragedy is not dependent on theism or lack thereof. You keep rewording the same straw man.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Do you feel there is a benefit to having solace in the face of tragedy, whether that solace is founded in truth or not, Euripedes? Please note I'm not asking if you think that it's a good thing to have solace from an untrue basis, just whether or not you feel there is any benefit to it.
quote:This serves as another answer to your question, Euripedes. If as you say atheism is a statement of unbelief, then how can it possibly also be something that helps people to despise atrocity, believe in people, believe in compassion?
We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.
-mapantsula
quote:No, it's not. See above.
And what you are saying is a regurgitated form of what D'Souza said. Hence straw man
quote:Who said I thought that solace in the face of tragedy was dependant on gods or gods? I didn't say that. I said that atheism is not in the business of offering solace to anything. It is, as Euripedes points out, a statement of unbelief.
This is not dependant on whether one believes in a god or gods. Solace in the face of tragedy is not dependent on theism or lack thereof. You keep rewording the same straw man.
quote:I did not misrepresent anyone's position with my posts.
This is a false argument, because there are alternatives to religious faith for drawing comfort, meaning, and solace from tragedies great and small. Religion does not hold the corner market on these things, just the corner market on the mouthpiece.
--------
If I said that religious faith was the only means of offering comfort, meaning, and solace in the face of tragedies, you would be right, that would be a false argument.
That is not what I said, though.
--------
Then it was a straw man.
quote:I did not claim there was nothing else out there, I made a simple comparison between theism and atheism. No more, no less. If I say that an orange has more vitamin C than a potato, that doesn't mean I hate potatoes.
That is what else is out there. It is in no way connected to or dependant on the existence or lack of a religious faith. Your straw man was in making a highly shortened but essentially same argument D'Souza made.
quote:Hmmm...perhaps I should complain about a ToS violation!
I suggest you begin thinking about what you say before you say them.
quote:Well to me, it's firstly a question of truth-value.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Why bother? People compare atheism and theism frequently, assigning benefits and drawbacks to each. It's a question of benefits.
quote:Yes. However, if the premise is untrue, I think that benefit is shallow and patronising.
Do you feel there is a benefit to having solace in the face of tragedy, whether that solace is founded in truth or not, Euripedes?
quote:You did.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
]Who said I thought that solace in the face of tragedy was dependant on gods or gods? I didn't say that.
quote:What you are now doing is a different term than 'straw man'. It is called 'backpedaling'.
Originally posted by Rakeesh on April 21st at 10:07 PM:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
quote:It isn't; well, it can free you from religious misconceptions which might otherwise lead to immoral consequences, but that's it for atheism itself.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:This serves as another answer to your question, Euripedes. If as you say atheism is a statement of unbelief, then how can it possibly also be something that helps people to despise atrocity, believe in people, believe in compassion?
We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.
-mapantsula
quote:Personal insults, no matter how obliquely referenced, are not going to make your statements any more valid.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Hmmm...perhaps I should complain about a ToS violation!
quote:As I quoted from his own words, mapantsula himself was comparing theism and atheism in terms of its response to tragedy. Or at the very least, proposings atheism's benefits in those terms. Now, granted, he was doing so responsively...but so was I.
I don't know of anyone who have weighed the benefits and drawbacks of theism vs atheism in strictly those terms. There is always the assumption that the atheist possesses the moral framework present in much of civilisation, that they will be a secular humanist, etc.
quote:I disagree, because I do not believe that something must be true to be deep, or that if untrue it is automatically shallow. I also think that for there to be patronizing, there must be intent, something neither of us can judge at all. I do agree, though, that if it is untrue, the benefit is of course much, much, much smaller, just by nature of being untrue.
Yes. However, if the premise is untrue, I think that benefit is shallow and patronising.
quote:I agree that one could read that implication into my post...if one ignored the rest of my post, where I said that it was more important to me the kind of person someone is, atheist or theist, that that has more meaning and importance.
The implication of your post was that this was one of the benefits of theism and the failing of atheism in itself. The comparison is fallacious between those two things shouldn't be compared, since it leads to the incorrect conclusion that only theists enjoy these benefits.
quote:Of course. The steering wheel is not meant to be a whole car, whereas the Mercedes is. Thus-if you're just asking the question, "Which is a better means of transportation?" your answer will obviously be the Mercedes and not the steering wheel. But if someone comes along and says, like mapantslan did, that the steering wheel offers a host of benefits that it clearly doesn't--such as internal combustion--then there's a problem.
It's kind of like comparing the whole of secular ethics with the Christian belief that there are no other gods but Yahweh, or comparing a Mercedes to an Aston Martin steering wheel.
quote:Are you the only one who gets to respond based on implication, then?
He never said that atheism in and of itself led atheists to believe those things.
quote:The "kind of person someone is" is also separate from their belief in a deity, hence separate from your statement preceding it. Also hence my statement that you should keep watch on your own wording. So, either what you meant and what you said were two different things, or you are continuing to backpedal.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I agree that one could read that implication into my post...if one ignored the rest of my post, where I said that it was more important to me the kind of person someone is, atheist or theist, that that has more meaning and importance.
The implication of your post was that this was one of the benefits of theism and the failing of atheism in itself. The comparison is fallacious between those two things shouldn't be compared, since it leads to the incorrect conclusion that only theists enjoy these benefits.
quote:So you were directly insulting? Okay, whistled.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Oh, and I wasn't being oblique.
quote:And yet Euripides has read your statement the same as I have. You are the one who gave atheism and theism as the only two choices. As of this point, I have not brought it up except to point out the error of your own two dimensional scenario.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, now I can understand where you're drawing your erroneous conclusions about what I've said.
quote:That's really not what he was doing. He was comparing atheists to theists in their response to tragedy. Essentially, he was saying that unbelievers are just as horrified by Virginia Tech as theists are, and do have ways of responding thoughtfully and respectfully to the tragedy; that they have means of securing emotional comfort and confidence from other sources.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:As I quoted from his own words, mapantsula himself was comparing theism and atheism in terms of its response to tragedy. Or at the very least, proposings atheism's benefits in those terms. Now, granted, he was doing so responsively...but so was I.
I don't know of anyone who have weighed the benefits and drawbacks of theism vs atheism in strictly those terms. There is always the assumption that the atheist possesses the moral framework present in much of civilisation, that they will be a secular humanist, etc.
quote:I didn't ignore that bit; I quoted it just to agree.
quote:I agree that one could read that implication into my post...if one ignored the rest of my post, where I said that it was more important to me the kind of person someone is, atheist or theist, that that has more meaning and importance.
The implication of your post was that this was one of the benefits of theism and the failing of atheism in itself. The comparison is fallacious between those two things shouldn't be compared, since it leads to the incorrect conclusion that only theists enjoy these benefits.
quote:Sure. Yet I don't see where the author did that. He was talking about atheists and the way they respond to tragedy and suffering, not just atheism.
quote:Of course. The steering wheel is not meant to be a whole car, whereas the Mercedes is. Thus-if you're just asking the question, "Which is a better means of transportation?" your answer will obviously be the Mercedes and not the steering wheel. But if someone comes along and says, like mapantslan did, that the steering wheel offers a host of benefits that it clearly doesn't--such as internal combustion--then there's a problem.
It's kind of like comparing the whole of secular ethics with the Christian belief that there are no other gods but Yahweh, or comparing a Mercedes to an Aston Martin steering wheel.
quote:No, he hasn't. He said that atheism/theism should not be compared as I compared them, which was one of the points I was trying to make in the first place. Just because I compared atheism and theism with regards to solace in tragedy, doesn't mean I feel they're the only two choices.
And yet Euripides has read your statement the same as I have. You are the one who gave atheism and theism as the only two choices. As of this point, I have not brought it up except to point out the error of your own two dimensional scenario.
quote:Ah, but the implied message of the essay, I believe, was 'Atheists can be good, decent, respectful people too, and have ways of responding to tragedy.'
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Are you the only one who gets to respond based on implication, then?
He never said that atheism in and of itself led atheists to believe those things.
quote:Yes you did:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's not seperate at all, because--and this is the last time I'll say this--I never said nor did I imply that the theist/atheist divide was the only thing about a person that could help lend solace to a tragedy.
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh on April 21st at 10:07 PM:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
quote:Nope, just smiling to show I mean no malice.
On an unrelated note, should I whistle you for the smilies? Clearly sarcastic and abusive. Hmmmmm.
quote:Well, he said "we atheists". If I were to say "we Mormons", and then list a variety of behaviors "we Mormons" engaged in, would you think I was just talking about how Mormons behave, or would you also think I was talking about how Mormonism guides Mormons to behave?
Sure. Yet I don't see where the author did that. He was talking about atheists and the way they respond to tragedy and suffering, not just atheism.
quote:Then say what you mean instead of what you said. What you said only brought up two things. If you mean differently, then you misspoke. Correct?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:No, he hasn't. He said that atheism/theism should not be compared as I compared them, which was one of the points I was trying to make in the first place. Just because I compared atheism and theism with regards to solace in tragedy, doesn't mean I feel they're the only two choices.
And yet Euripides has read your statement the same as I have. You are the one who gave atheism and theism as the only two choices. As of this point, I have not brought it up except to point out the error of your own two dimensional scenario.
quote:You admit to only comparing the two. Only the two. If you meant differently, do you not think you should have included the others at least in passing with your comparison?
This is not remotely a difficult concept to grasp. Just because I compared the two, does not mean I feel they're the only two.
quote:Why must you persist in the personal attack? I am not going to fight with you over this.
And ironically, I had made my remark about your sarcastic smilies before I read your post about whistling me for my insult. But now it's even more appropriate
I guess that's just what I'm like, a mean-spirited Fox News fan.
quote:No, I don't believe that. Your statement implied that:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Ahh, I see. So you do believe that if one compares two seperate things and finds one--for the purposes of a very specific comparison--more beneficial, then those are the only two situations that are possible!
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh on April 21st at 10:07 PM:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
quote:I agree completely.
Originally posted by Euripides:
I think we're all essentially reasonable people here, and don't want to get into anything remotely resembling a flame war. It would also be sadly ironic after PJ's recent thread; so what do you say that we all--including me--drop any ad homs, whether implied, veiled, sarcastic, or otherwise?
I also think that once we get past the 'what I said was' part, we'll find that we all agree that the comparison D'Souza was making was a fallacious one; that atheists can have ideals and morals, and a way to respond to tragedy, in the absence of a god. And that's really what lies at the crux of this argument.
quote:I would, yes. I think the key difference is that Mormonism is a specific religion and system of ideas, whereas atheism is essentially a statement to the effect of 'I don't see any good reasons to believe in religion or supernatural entities'.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:quote:Well, he said "we atheists". If I were to say "we Mormons", and then list a variety of behaviors "we Mormons" engaged in, would you think I was just talking about how Mormons behave, or would you also think I was talking about how Mormonism guides Mormons to behave?
Sure. Yet I don't see where the author did that. He was talking about atheists and the way they respond to tragedy and suffering, not just atheism.
quote:Exactly.
Originally posted by Euripides:
I think the key difference is that Mormonism is a specific religion and system of ideas, whereas atheism is essentially a statement to the effect of 'I don't see any good reasons to believe in religion or supernatural entities'.
quote:You are stating what others believe even when it isn't true. I would rather you cease attempting to turn this into a flame war.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
No you don't, Jutsa. . . You may be a fan of making obviously untrue statements in favor of being nice. I am not.
quote:But there is no Atheism structure to guide us. We have prominent atheist thinkers, but there is no cohesive ethical guidance other than the limited rational conclusions one can draw about behavior in the absence of a deity. Atheism allows these conclusions (many people may have even reached the same ones), but it does not preach them.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Well, he said "we atheists". If I were to say "we Mormons", and then list a variety of behaviors "we Mormons" engaged in, would you think I was just talking about how Mormons behave, or would you also think I was talking about how Mormonism guides Mormons to behave? [/QB]
quote:Once again, exactly.
Originally posted by Nato:
But there is no Atheism structure to guide us. We have prominent atheist thinkers, but there is no cohesive ethical guidance other than the limited rational conclusions one can draw about behavior in the absence of a deity. Atheism allows these conclusions (many people may have even reached the same ones), but it does not preach them.
quote:I'm not sure this question will get you anywhere. It seems like you're translating it to "When you are looking for a source of consolation in a situation like this, do you turn to faith, or to atheism?"
Rakeesh said:
And now, before I actually go to bed (bit of a flurry of activity here) answer me this simple question, Jutsa: which bottle do you get when you want something spicy? Do you get the bottle of Tabasco sauce, or the bottle of whole milk?
quote:Jutsa, you are making unwarranted leaps not supported on their face by what Rakeesh is saying.
Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:You did.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
]Who said I thought that solace in the face of tragedy was dependant on gods or gods? I didn't say that.
quote:What you are now doing is a different term than 'straw man'. It is called 'backpedaling'.
Originally posted by Rakeesh on April 21st at 10:07 PM:
Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all.
The answer is no.
quote:Exactly.
Atheism has no solace to offer. That's sort of the point.
Atheists, however, have plenty of comfort, sympathy, and support to offer, because atheists are also people who feel pain, love, and compassion. That's sort of also the point.
quote:I read it, I understand it, and as I said it is a regurgitation of a straw man. You see, no one else brought it up as if it had. The writer of the response to D'Souza didn't bring it up as if it had.
Originally posted by Dagonee:
Jutsa, you are making unwarranted leaps not supported on their face by what Rakeesh is saying.
You've quoted this many times now, so I'll assume you've actually read it: "Well the plain and simple truth is, theism has something to offer-whether it's True or Not-in situations like this, but atheism, in and of itself, has nothing to offer at all."
I've bolded the part that it appears you haven't read, or at least understood.
quote:But no one else said otherwise. Can you agree with that?
Rakeesh said that theism provides a mechanism for providing solace through Gods and that atheism does not provide a mechanism for solace. But that does NOT mean that the only way to achieve solace was through God. Merely that atheism - whether defined as the lack of belief in the existence of God or as the belief that no god exists - does not contain within itself a mechanism analogous to solace through God.
quote:No one argued otherwise. That is why it was a straw man or a mistake in wording.
The only way to get from what Rakeesh said to what you have repeatedly insisted that he said is to add an intermediate premise, namely that all possible mechanisms for solace can be found within the superset of atheism and theism. He said no such thing. He said that (i) theism has an attribute that can provide solace and (ii) atheism, in and of itself, does not.
quote:I agree as well, but no one said otherwise.
I actually disagree with Rakeesh on (i) - it's easy enough to imagine a form of theism that does not contain within itself a mechanism for solace. So solace is not inherent to theism.
quote:You pretty much just made my case.
Additional philosophies that have atheism as a founding premise do have mechanisms for solace.
But that's a statement that is in no way precluded by that statement Rakeesh initially made (and which you have taken such pains to repost so many times).
Since no one said otherwise, Rakeesh's statement was a comment on a statement no one else made. That is a straw man, unless he was trying to say something else (like he claims) and worded it improperly.quote:I agree.
Originally posted by Chris Bridges:
I kinda skimmed over most of this thread after it became obvious that the same thing was being said over and over. But I agree with Dag's post.
Atheism has no solace to offer. That's sort of the point.
Atheists, however, have plenty of comfort, sympathy, and support to offer, because atheists are also people who feel pain, love, and compassion. That's sort of also the point.
However, since comparing atheism and theism with regard to those things has nothing to do with the price of tea in China or the statements prior to Rakeesh's post (including the link), my point about his post being a straw man or a misstatement remains. quote:Here is what I observed within this thread:
An example of a straw man fallacy:
Person A: I don't think children should run into the busy streets.
Person B: I think that it would be foolish to lock children up all day.
By insinuating that Person A's argument is far more draconian than it is, Person B has side-stepped the issue. Here the "straw man" that person B has set up is the premise that "The only way to stop children running into the busy streets is to keep them inside all day".
quote:Oh, so you do think I'm an 'essentially reasonable person'? *laugh* In the past, you've called me a liar, you've called me intolerant, you've hinted that I'm some sort of sheep following the Fox News crowd, and a variety of other things. So, pardon me if I somehow arrive at the conclusion that you don't think I'm reasonable.
You are stating what others believe even when it isn't true. I would rather you cease attempting to turn this into a flame war.
quote:Now, you can go on and on and on and on for as long as you can draw breath about how the quote I've bolded doesn't at least imply that atheism brings something to the tragedy table, but you'll still be wrong. The implication is very possible to draw.
I read it, I understand it, and as I said it is a regurgitation of a straw man. You see, no one else brought it up as if it had. The writer of the response to D'Souza didn't bring it up as if it had.
We atheists do not believe in gods, or angels, or demons, or souls that endure, or a meeting place after all is said and done where more can be said and done and the point of it all revealed. We don’t believe in the possibility of redemption after our lives, but the necessity of compassion in our lives. We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.
quote:
See, considering his later posts, it would have been far easier to say "that isn't what I meant, let me rephrase that." No one was arguing that atheism in and of itself provides comfort, solace, or anything else. As I understand it, no one is arguing that still.
Let's just be clear about something: I am not deceived by your frequent use of smilies as you've been using them in this thread, Jutsa. I consider them a form of sarcastic emphasis, and I am responding as such. If you say they are not, I will not believe you.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
quote:So, are you saying that you are intentionally not beginning from the assumption of good faith when responding to me?
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If you say they are not, I will not believe you.
quote:No the usage is "the price of tea in China."
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
*ahem* Jutsa, the phrase is, "the price of rice in China."
quote:When someone tells me, as you have in the past, that they do not assume good faith with regards to me, why exactly should I do so with regards to them, I wonder? It's fascinating the way you imply this is something I have done entirely on my own, as though you have no part in it. As to why I continue, it's because I am unwilling to let your objections stand unchallenged. Also because you have made some irritating accusations that aren't backed up by accuracy.
So, are you saying that you are intentionally not beginning from the assumption of good faith when responding to me?
quote:This is good. Way to not reply to the statements I make, thus ensuring your objections remain specious. Also, you have yet to answer my spiciness question. You can't answer, because to do so would weaken your already flimsy arguments.
Rakeesh's statement sidestepped the whole point of the original link and subsequent posts because no one, through direct or inferential statements, claimed that atheism provides such a thing. Since we generally seem to agree that atheists still have the ability to utilize methods for seeking comfort facing such a tragedy, what is the point of making a comparison like what Rakeesh made? Was it a straw man? It's possible, as it contains the properties of one. Was it a misstatement? It's possible, but I see no admission of such as of yet.
quote:Oh look I can use wikipedia too!
Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
quote:No the usage is "the price of tea in China."
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
*ahem* Jutsa, the phrase is, "the price of rice in China."
quote:Can you please counter what I said without insulting me? I have explained my reason for calling it what I did. I even said that I was willing to accept it if it is explained as a mistaken wording. Instead of attacking my character, attack my argument.
Originally posted by Morbo:
I'm going to jump on the Dag-wagon (like a band-wagon but with rigorous logic) and agree that Rakeesh's post was not a straw-man.
I've dealt with Jutsa's passive-aggressive arguments before, and they can be frustrating.
quote:I have not only explained my statement, I have continually asked you to focus on my statement and not what you deem is my character. You continue to make this about my character instead of about my statement.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
When someone tells me, as you have in the past, that they do not assume good faith with regards to me, why exactly should I do so with regards to them, I wonder? It's fascinating the way you imply this is something I have done entirely on my own, as though you have no part in it. As to why I continue, it's because I am unwilling to let your objections stand unchallenged. Also because you have made some irritating accusations that aren't backed up by accuracy.
quote:What does your 'spiciness question' have to do with what you actually said. I already responded in stating quite clearly, more than once, that NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT ATHEISM DOES WHAT YOU ARGUED AGAINST.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
This is good. Way to not reply to the statements I make, thus ensuring your objections remain specious. Also, you have yet to answer my spiciness question. You can't answer, because to do so would weaken your already flimsy arguments.
quote:It is possible to say something that others have not disagreed with in advance. Just sayin'.
Do you understand what I am saying, Dagonee? No one had argued that atheism contained such. With the parts "the plain simple truth" it is implied that someone has either claimed or inferred otherwise. So, since no one in this thread or the original link had claimed or inferred otherwise, either Rakeesh misspoke or he was setting up a straw man.
quote:I don't care if anyone said otherwise. Rakeesh didn't say anyone said otherwise.
But no one else said otherwise. Can you agree with that?
quote:That doesn't make it a straw man or mistake in wording unless Rakeesh claimed that someone made that argument. He didn't.
No one argued otherwise. That is why it was a straw man or a mistake in wording.
quote:No, it wasn't. It was a comment about theism and atheism, presumably inspired by the opening post and the link therein, but not necessarily in response to it.
You pretty much just made my case. [Smile] Since no one said otherwise, Rakeesh's statement was a comment on a statement no one else made. That is a straw man, unless he was trying to say something else (like he claims) and worded it improperly.
quote:You mean, it would have been easier for Rakeesh to buy into your unfounded assumption that anything posted about a topic must be in response to a specific statement made in that topic? Depends entirely what you mean by easier. Less frustrating to Rakeesh? Almost certainly, if he could ignore the being dishonest for the sake of not having a bang0his-head-against-the-wall argument with you.
I agree. [Smile] However, since comparing atheism and theism with regard to those things has nothing to do with the price of tea in China or the statements prior to Rakeesh's post (including the link), my point about his post being a straw man or a misstatement remains. [Smile]
See, considering his later posts, it would have been far easier to say "that isn't what I meant, let me rephrase that." No one was arguing that atheism in and of itself provides comfort, solace, or anything else. As I understand it, no one is arguing that still.
quote:What's the point? He wanted to say it. It's something else several people have said and agreed with in this thread so far. Your false dichotomy (straw man or misstatement) relies on your assumption that the only possible motive for posting that was to refute something already said.
Original link and posts in the thread: Atheists can still have methods for overcoming tragedy in the face of incidents like the VT shootings.
Rakeesh's statement: Atheism in and of itself contains no such method.
Rakeesh's statement sidestepped the whole point of the original link and subsequent posts because no one, through direct or inferential statements, claimed that atheism provides such a thing. Since we generally seem to agree that atheists still have the ability to utilize methods for seeking comfort facing such a tragedy, what is the point of making a comparison like what Rakeesh made? Was it a straw man? It's possible, as it contains the properties of one. Was it a misstatement? It's possible, but I see no admission of such as of yet.
quote:RAKEESH DID NOT ARGUE OR STATE THAT ANYONE ARGUED OR STATED OTHERWISE PRIOR TO HIS MAKING THIS POST!
NO ONE ARGUED OR STATED OTHERWISE PRIOR TO YOU MAKING THIS POST! NOT A SINGLE HUMAN BEING MADE SUCH A CLAIM!
quote:If you want to be clear, demonstrate where Rakeesh said that anyone state that atheism, in and of itself, has anything to offer in such a situation.
I have no idea how I can be more clear. Instead of making personal claims about me, how about you actually address what I have been saying from the start? I would really appreciate that. [Smile]
quote:Dude. We've been through this, like, a half-dozen times now. This is the last time I'm going to discuss this particular subject with you...and as I've said elsewhere, when I make that claim with regards to you, I mean it.
I have not only explained my statement, I have continually asked you to focus on my statement and not what you deem is my character. You continue to make this about my character instead of about my statement.
quote:At the very least, the portion of mapantslan's blog can be said to imply that atheism offers solace. So, yes, yes someone has implied that atheism is superior to theism in this regard. Stop saying that it has not been said. It clearly, undeniably has been at least implied.
NO ONE HAS ARGUED THAT ATHEISM DOES WHAT YOU ARGUED AGAINST.
quote:My spiciness question has to do with the rather stupid claim you're making, that when you compare two things, that means you think that those are the only.
You admit to only comparing the two. Only the two. If you meant differently, do you not think you should have included the others at least in passing with your comparison?
(See how sarcastic that smilie was? You're not fooling anyone)
quote:This is a noteworthy difference, and for what it's worth, I personally agree that when I examine the behavior of an atheist, I won't have the expectation that another atheist three towns over might share similar sorts of behaviors the way I would if I examined the behavior of a Mormon. For example, Scott R and I. Or for another example, King of Men and you.
I would, yes. I think the key difference is that Mormonism is a specific religion and system of ideas, whereas atheism is essentially a statement to the effect of 'I don't see any good reasons to believe in religion or supernatural entities'.
quote:I think that if you had worded your point in this way earlier on, such a heated discussion may have been avoided. As far as I can tell, the above quote is a pretty accurate summary of your argument, and for the record, I agree. This late in the debate, however, it seems to have been overlooked in lieu of points that others have felt are more important to address.
Originally posted by Jutsa Notha Name:
Rakeesh's statement sidestepped the whole point of the original link and subsequent posts because no one, through direct or inferential statements, claimed that atheism provides such a thing. Since we generally seem to agree that atheists still have the ability to utilize methods for seeking comfort facing such a tragedy, what is the point of making a comparison like what Rakeesh made? Was it a straw man? It's possible, as it contains the properties of one. Was it a misstatement? It's possible, but I see no admission of such as of yet.
quote:The Aztec pantheon; also the Norse, Greek, and Roman ones.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Hmm. I hadn't thought of it Dagonee, but you're quite right: theism in and of itself isn't a guarantee of the ability to find solace in tragedy. I have yet to hear of a theistic system which didn't, that I can recall, but by no means does that guarantee there isn't one.
quote:While there are many flavours of moral philosophy, I haven't met many atheists in countries like America, Australia, or Japan who couldn't be described using the umbrella term 'secular humanist'. Even when the philosophies they draw from can be disparate, the morals they hold are often very similar; minimise suffering, increase happiness--with no deity as a middle man.
quote:This is a noteworthy difference, and for what it's worth, I personally agree that when I examine the behavior of an atheist, I won't have the expectation that another atheist three towns over might share similar sorts of behaviors the way I would if I examined the behavior of a Mormon. For example, Scott R and I. Or for another example, King of Men and you.
I would, yes. I think the key difference is that Mormonism is a specific religion and system of ideas, whereas atheism is essentially a statement to the effect of 'I don't see any good reasons to believe in religion or supernatural entities'.
But since I think this way, since I acknowledge that there is no unifying belief system or ideology behind atheism (beyond any unification a statement of disbelief might offer), I think that probably an atheist shouldn't say, "We atheists believe in...," or, "We atheists behave like...," and so on and so forth.
quote:But not everyone's god is all forgiving, and the equivalent of heaven could be either a very nebulous concept, or a very exclusive kind of place.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Now wait a minute, in the Greek and Roman old religions, if you lived a good life, you (sometimes) at least had a decent place waiting for you in the afterlife. There's solace right there.
If you're Norse, if you die bravely in battle at least you've got a crack at something fun later on.
Aztec, I don't know enough about it to say one way or another, but I wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't anything.
quote:Then couldn't the author have properly credited his virtues by saying, "We secular humanists..."? Wouldn't you agree that it was (probably--I don't actually know the guy) the professor's secular humanism, and not his atheism, from which those virtues flowed?
While there are many flavours of moral philosophy, I haven't met many atheists in countries like America, Australia, or Japan who couldn't be described using the umbrella term 'secular humanist'. Even when the philosophies they draw from can be disparate, the morals they hold are often very similar; minimise suffering, increase happiness--with no deity as a middle man.
quote:Agreed. But even a nebuluous and exclusive heaven would offer solace to some.
But not everyone's god is all forgiving, and the equivalent of heaven could be either a very nebulous concept, or a very exclusive kind of place.
quote:Ah, but nobody expects ... the Hatrack Inquisition! *grin
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Then couldn't the author have properly credited his virtues by saying, "We secular humanists..."? Wouldn't you agree that it was (probably--I don't actually know the guy) the professor's secular humanism, and not his atheism, from which those virtues flowed?
quote:I assure you I do not feel defensive about this topic. I understand you were using the phrase to denote an unrelated change in subject, I was questioning the wording not the manner in which it was used.
BlackBlade, I was not using the term you are trying to argue about. I was not calling it a nonsequitur. I was not calling it an absurd change of subject. I was saying that it is unrelated to the subject. There is a difference. If you are going to correct me, at least be absolutely sure you know the intended usage before becoming defensive. I have no idea where your adamant nature on this is coming from.
quote:I agree that one can still be an atheist and have many things more helpful and less cruel than, "@#$% happens pal, get used to it," and then walk away. But those many other helpful and meangingful things? They don't come from the atheism, nor do they come in spite of it.
So I think he is using the term "atheism" to loosely include the secular humanism also a part of his worldview. That is, he is arguing (I think) that atheism can have a response to this which is more than just "Tough luck, bub. The world sucks sometimes," and -- to be more specific for him -- that is because atheism does not rule out such perspectives as secular humanism, that atheists can also find meaning. And still be atheists.
quote:Right on that last point. He's responding to criticism that atheists are unable to appropriately respond to tragedy. He's saying they can and do have a fitting response. The people get the credit, their belief doesn't.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
However, if religion does not get credit for the good behavior of individuals--and I don't think it should--why then should atheism? I believed then, and I believe now, that it was an important distinction to make. Mapantsula isn't a good or a bad person because he's an atheist.
quote:Sure. I think that's really splitting hairs though. In the context of the discussion I think 'atheists' provided an appropriate contrast. It's also a more concise word than 'secular humanists', and what makes it doubly appropriate is that D'Souza was specifically attacking atheists on the basis that their disbelief led them to emotional poverty of some kind.
quote:Then couldn't the author have properly credited his virtues by saying, "We secular humanists..."? Wouldn't you agree that it was (probably--I don't actually know the guy) the professor's secular humanism, and not his atheism, from which those virtues flowed?
While there are many flavours of moral philosophy, I haven't met many atheists in countries like America, Australia, or Japan who couldn't be described using the umbrella term 'secular humanist'. Even when the philosophies they draw from can be disparate, the morals they hold are often very similar; minimise suffering, increase happiness--with no deity as a middle man.
quote:'Secular humanists' is two words.
Sure. I think that's really splitting hairs though. In the context of the discussion I think 'atheists' provided an appropriate contrast. It's also a more concise word than 'secular humanists', and what makes it doubly appropriate is that D'Souza was specifically attacking atheists on the basis that their disbelief led them to emotional poverty of some kind.
I disagree that it's splitting hairs, I feel it's an important distinction to make when a comparison between atheism and theism comes up, as it did here, for the reasons noted above. But even if it were splitting hairs...well, those hairs have been split and resplit so many times in these discussions, I think they need some conditioner or something, don't you? edit: it's mostly pointless, except as Shig says to try to prevent future tragedies.![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
quote:You just said that if "there is something positive happening, then it is important to identify the source." Secular humanism is a collection of beliefs. If there is something positive happening from secular humanism, it must stem from some of those beliefs. I think it would be important to figure out which beliefs if only to try and determine which beliefs are most important to have.
Does it matter? If humanism is positive, does it matter why?
quote:I hadn't heard of him until now, but based on what he's written about this particular issue, I wholeheartedly agree.
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
But all that aside, I don't know much about D'Souza--I saw him once on the Colbert Report--but he doesn't sound like a very well-meaning or especially smart fellow to me.
quote:It seems that way when we take the discussion into an academic debate and tear apart each word. Yet, D'Souza was attacking atheists generally, and secular humanism and a moral abhorrence for suffering is widespread enough among atheists for the author to write, 'We atheists believe...'
Originally posted by katharina:
It isn't splitting hairs. Atheism is a denial of something - not something positive in and of itself.
quote:These aren't the tenets of a quirky or particularly specific moral philosophy; they are things which somewhere around 99% of atheists would agree on, depending upon what the author means by "human rights and dignity". In fact, a lot of those things apply to most people generally. Please see the statement in context. It's perfectly reasonable.
We believe in people, in their joys and pains, in their good ideas and their wit and wisdom. We believe in human rights and dignity, and we know what it is for those to be trampled on by brutes and vandals. We may believe that the universe is pitilessly indifferent but we know that friends and strangers alike most certainly are not. We despise atrocity, not because a god tells us that it is wrong, but because if not massacre then nothing could be wrong.
quote:The absence of something isn't always a negative thing, just because it's an absence. Sometimes it can even be positive. In this case, it's a perfectly neutral thing. Atheism does not begin with a 'bad' or 'good' universe/society/existance, it stems from a neutral one.
It isn't splitting hairs. Atheism is a denial of something - not something positive in and of itself.
quote:No. They don't. Atheism isn't religion. It doesn't give you anything but an absence of a supreme being, which, as I said before, is neutral. Religion defines the nature of earth and the ether etc., whereas atheism does not. It does not give you reasons. Perhaps this is what you mean by "something positive in of itself" in which case you are correct.
Those reasons do not come from atheism.
quote:This is exactly what I meant.
The beliefs of atheists that seem to be present ed here, come from the humans that create them; from observation, from scientific investigation, from experience, from hope. I would call this Humanism.
...
Although Euripides says that there are uniting beliefs for all atheists, I think that only applies to Humanists, who make up the vast majority of atheists.
quote:You and I at least have been over this before, but I thought I'd draw attention to our disagreement for the sake of newcomers to the conversation. I believe that since, when a religious person says, "We Mormons believe...," or, "We Catholics believe," or, "We Buddhists believe," that person is generally comprehended as implying (whether or not he knows what he's talking about) a statement about the behavior of Mormons, Catholics, Buddhists, etc., in general.
It's a perfectly reasonable statement. He didn't even say that atheists believe these things bceause of atheism. In fact, it was worded more like, 'We atheists don't do _____, but we see value in _____ and have meaningful ways of responding to tragedy too.'