quote:I mean, look at what he said compared to what was supposedly written. They weren't close. He deviated from the script and started speaking what he thought. And if he wasn't mindlessly reading from the page, then he had to be aware of what he was saying. And he didn't try and correct himself, he just kept on going unfettered in any way.
Yeah, because it's not possible to completely and utterly mess up while trying to quote something.
I'm suddenly reminded of Bush delivering a speech. Something about "fool me once, shame, shame on you. fool me...won't get fooled again."
I mean obviously that's so different from the way the speech was written that there's no way that was just a flub on the president's part.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
The scientific method includes basic, simple human observation. How can you say that people can detect God's actions (when He wants them to, of course) but that He cannot be determined/proven scientifically.
I can prove simple existence with repeated observation. Think...Ivory Billed Woodpecker.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want respect, act in a way that inspires it. Constant whining about how everybody condescends to you would not get you any, even if it were actually true. I won't be responding further until you grow up a bit. Have a nice day.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people of faith generally believe that the deities claimed by other faiths are equally as real as their own Deity? Do Christians, for example, believe that the god Zeus exists? Do they believe that our star, the sun, is a god, and that worshiping it can change the weather? I've never come across a Christian who does.
If people of faith don't believe that other deities exist, why should they expect atheists to concede that their particular deity MAY exist, we just don't know.
Honestly, how many Christians can say in good conscience, "I believe that there is a real possibility that the great god Zeus exists."?
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe mankind has always been aware of the existence of a deity. Zeus, Odin, any pantheon represents the acknowledgement of something greater than ourselves.
Is the Christian view necessarily right? No. Is it right for me? Yes.
However the world actually works, I believe God is the fundamental concept of Goodness. All my definition of Good comes from what I believe He is.
My view of God can be wrong without changing the fact that whatever He is is Good. So whether He's out there or can be proven is not my point. My point is that I disagree with Penn that theists can be wrong.
Plenty of theists act like they can't, but that's true of a certain personality type and has nothing to do with religious beliefs or non-belief as the case may be.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The scientific method includes basic, simple human observation. How can you say that people can detect God's actions (when He wants them to, of course) but that He cannot be determined/proven scientifically.
I believe that where God and his works are concerned, our mental/spiritual state (whether or not we believe, have faith, etc.) affects our ability to perceive God and receive his messages.
One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is repeatability. If you see can see an ivory billed woodpecker, but you can't collect physical evidence (such as a photograph or a dead specimen) and nobody else can see it, the scientific community is probably not going to take it very seriously.
But since I believe that God's ability to perform miracles in our lives (including giving us answers to our prayers) is affected and limited by our faith in him, it is not repeatable by others. If it's not repeatable by people who are skeptical (another cornerstone of the scientific method), then it's not good science.
And since it's practically always a personal experience, there's no evidence to show others.
That is why I believe that God is detectable by humans but not by the scientific method.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: You said, "This speaks volumes about your own openmindedness. Why should we, as atheists, grant you the consideration you're obviously completely unwilling to grant us," in response to me saying that I'm extremely unlikely to be convinced by any attempts to show that atheists are not condescending to theists. Aside from proving my point more beautifully than I ever could, when you you talk about "granting consideration," that sounds more like you are using the verb "to consider" rather than the adjective "considerate."
quote: People hear what they want to hear.
You are misrepresenting what Twinky said so that it fits what you wanted to hear. It is unconsiderate to assume that all atheists will be condescending. It is not condescending to point this out.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Very cool! Thanks, Baron. I'm not sure what the "God is Dead" atheists are, and personally, I don't actually know any atheists who leap from "There is no proof of God" to "I KNOW there is NO God." And I know a whole buncha atheists. I think it's a pretty common misconception that the majority of us hate religion, faith, the idea of God, etc. and that we believe that we're right because we say so. That's untrue - for most of us, although of course the jerky atheists are out there.
Anyway, I liked the essay, and I think it was very thought-provoking and well written. Particularly the last bit describes my own beliefs and my own reasons for being an atheist. Danke!
Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers. Recent studies with cardiac patients has actually shown that the people being prayed for showed a slight but not-statistically-meaningful increase in mortality rates. Unless you want to redefine answering prayers as to mean "God responds to prayers by doing what He knows is best," which is tantamount to saying that "God ignores prayers and does what He always would have done, anyhow."
And was it here or on P-Web that I started the thread "The God of the 250,000" regarding the people who died (one assumes, praying to God to save them) in the tsunami a few years back?
Statistically, scientifically, God "ignores" prayers (or does not exist, choose your poison). All else is coincidence, or something hapening to the third cousin of someone's friend's brother's golf buddy.
And, as we all know, God hates amputees.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You are misrepresenting what Twinky said so that it fits what you wanted to hear. It is unconsiderate to assume that all atheists will be condescending. It is not condescending to point this out.
I never said there was something wrong with pointing out. And how did I misrepresent? Twinkey tried to come back and change the meaning of his post. That's what I meant by the difference between the verb and the adjective. I don't hear what I want to hear. I hear what I hear. Ya hear?
And I'm not about to call you childish or anything, King of Men, but until you start talking to me like an equal, like Amanacer and the others, I will not reposnd to you further. You are not being constructive.
Then again, I don't know how constructive any of this is, but it's fun! But that's why I engage in debates like this; for the challenge and maybe to learn a thing or two, and I enjoy doing it with like minded persons. So you may as well stay out of it.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers...
Correction: people have failed to find a strong correlation between prayer and a specific positive result. That's not precisely the same thing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: To Morbo: I explained a little earlier that the one common thread between all atheists is condescension.
Which is obviously false.
Yeah it is. I said that there are certainly exceptions, and now that I've had time to think about it, i think the exceptions are going to be the ones (and this may even be a majority) who don't have any solid reasoning for being atheists, or are not skilled at logic. Maybe they were brought up to believe that there is no God. But these atheists are not likely to engage anyone in a debate defending their belief (dis-belief) and so the only atheists that I engage in a debate with end up revealing their underlying condescension torwards people of faith.
Oh yeah, the other exceptions are atheists who are condescending to faith but not to me because they know me and know that I am not one to be condescended to.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, you have trapped me. I find your assertions laughable and wish to dismiss them contemptuously, but cannot do so without condescending to you.
Perhaps, if you are unable to speak to atheists without receiving condescension in return, you might consider that the cause of this attitude is possibly not in the atheists to whom you're speaking but rather in the one universal constant present in all those conversations: you.
Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Except that it's been proven scientifically that God does not answer prayers.
What you described does not prove that God does not answer prayers, as it only dealt with God answering prayers by healing people.
There is no way that science could ever prove that God has or has not not answered my prayers about, for example, the Book of Mormon, as the answer was not something that anybody or anything other than myself could hve detected.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Sadly, you have trapped me. I find your assertions laughable and wish to dismiss them contemptuously, but cannot do so without condescending to you.
Perhaps, if you are unable to speak to atheists without receiving condescension in return, you might consider that the cause of this attitude is possibly not in the atheists to whom you're speaking but rather in the one universal constant present in all those conversations: you.
Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
Hah! Don't worry, you are being condescending.
All good points, though. And you may be on to something there, about me being the universal constant. But my observation is based upon attitudes I have observed whether I was involved or not. In books by atheists, articles (like the Penn Jillette one that started this), classroom instructors, the like. And it was respect for me, not fear, that reduced the level of condescension among people who know me. Believe, no one has any reason to fear me. No, it is only here or on other message boards where all I am is a name on the screen that people feel free to reveal themselves for who they truly are.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Certainly, I confess that being told "all atheists are condescending, except the wishy-washy, illogical, or intimidated ones" makes me much less likely to hold you in any respect. Is this deliberate on your part?
I don't understand. I formed those opinions and gave my reasons why, all I have gotten is fortification of those opinions, and you are less likely to "respect" me because I don't just change my mind?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:And it was respect for me, not fear, that reduced the level of condescension among people who know me.
You'll forgive me if I find this highly unlikely.
quote: I formed those opinions and gave my reasons why, all I have gotten is fortification of those opinions, and you are less likely to "respect" me because I don't just change my mind?
The thing is, I could elaborate on the reason. But I'm forced to assume that you're either posting dishonestly -- i.e. trolling -- or are so blinded by your pre-existing bias that it's rendered you functionally illiterate. If you're sincerely interested in an explanation of my position, let me know; I would appreciate it if you rewarded any of my subsequent efforts, though, by making some effort yourself to actually read and comprehend what was written.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course I'll forgive you. But I'd like to know why. You know nothing of me except what I've said here, but you find it highly unlikely that anyone would respect me? Or are you saying that you find it highly unlikely that anyone wouldn't fear me?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And how did I misrepresent? Twinkey tried to come back and change the meaning of his post.
I do not believe he did. You responded to his post that said you were being inconsiderate by saying:
quote: Besides that, your argumentation is faulty, inasmuch as my rejection of your hypothetical whitewashing of said condescension does not imply that I have not considered it.
You turned his considerate (adjective) into considered (verb). Twinky realized the misunderstanding and clarified:
quote:I didn't mean to imply that you hadn't considered it. I meant that you weren't being considerate, not that your position was necessarily unconsidered.
. You somehow interpreted this as condescension.
It seems to me like you are the one being hostile and creating negative interactions. This is not a comment on anything that you believe, but on the way that you present your beliefs and respond to those that disagree with you.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's the fact that you've equated the atheists you find condescending with the atheists that can actually put up an argument for their position. Such a statement makes myself (and Tom, it seems) think that it's less the fact that the athesits are being condescending, and more the fact that you don't like to lose an argument - and anyone who can beat you at one, or seems to be about to, should be flagged off the field for the penalty of condescenion.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: It's the fact that you've equated the atheists you find condescending with the atheists that can actually put up an argument for their position. Such a statement makes myself (and Tom, it seems) think that it's less the fact that the athesits are being condescending, and more the fact that you don't like to lose an argument - and anyone who can beat you at one, or seems to be about to, should be flagged off the field for the penalty of condescenion.
Good point, but this isn't an argument about beliefs, it is about the level of condescension among atheists torwards theists.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Amancer, I went back and re-read his post where he first said it, and I think you may be right. I missed the precise meaning of what he said, but I do not think I misinterpreted his condescension, willful or otherwise.
I hope I don't come across as hostile, and I don't consider any of these interactions to be particularly negative, except for where King of Men was involved. Like I said, I think it's fun!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And you guys wouldn't be doing it unless you thought it was fun too, right? I just hope your idea of fun isn't just to cut down all the theist's arguments.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's a lot of fun to discuss ideas, find out what other people believe and why, explain my own beliefs, and have people explain why they might disagree/ see logical flaws in my beliefs. I think this is the most fun when done in a respectful environment where I do not feel attacked. When you say that all atheists are condescending and those that aren't haven't thought it through well, it no longer feels like a respectful environment. You are not attacking ideas, but the character of the people discussing them. I do not find that fun.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And why did you just jump in all of the sudden? Thanks for your imput, though. I'm going to examine my posts and see what it is that makes me seem hostile to even a previously neutral observer now.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You said you hoped you didn't come across as hostile. I assumed that because of that you'd want to know if you did, because otherwise, what would be the point of posting that at all?
I also hoped that since I haven't been arguing with you, that you might listen to me saying it more than if some others did.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, I went back and read this whole thread again, and I have definitely been on the defensive, except at the very beginning. Back then I was just posting my thoughts and not expecting to get into all this. But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that. All I can do is point to the evidence that supports my opinion, which is abundant, and just say "hey, you think YOU"RE under attack?"
Besides, there is no real attacking here. Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads. I am not innocent of the same either. I can be condescending too. For the sake of my argument on this board, I have tried REALLY hard not to be. I don't think you could point to any examples where I have been, except maybe my first couple of posts. And now I will wait to be proven wrong, because I know they're coming.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head: You said you hoped you didn't come across as hostile. I assumed that because of that you'd want to know if you did, because otherwise, what would be the point of posting that at all?
I also hoped that since I haven't been arguing with you, that you might listen to me saying it more than if some others did.
I try to give what everyone says equal weight, though I probably did lend more credence to your opinion because you hadn't been involved.
Since I can't really defend anymore the idea that I didn't sound hostile (thanks a lot, Mr. Porteiro Head; j/k), all I can say is that I'm not hostile and I really didn't mean to sound hostile. I really thought I was just making reasoned arguments, really!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So we've established that it's the people who can actually post a half-way decent argument (from either side) that are the ones considered hostile or condescending. The ones that can't make a good argument seemingly aren't a threat. The accusations of "hostile" or "condescending" serve to attempt to defuse the opponent's argument by discrediting the person making the argument (sort of a passive-agressive ad-hominem attack). Nicely done.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads.
I don't agree with this, but even if I did, it is still something that creates an environment where people do not feel free to discuss their ideas and learn from each other.
quote: But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that.
Yes, you can. You can choose to not make an inflammatory comment that in no way furthers discussion but instead polarizes people against you. Saying you found Penn or his reasoning condescending would be fine. But you said you found ALL atheists condescending, although you later amended that to just all atheists with thought out beliefs. You are directly calling many people on this board condescending who have done nothing to show themselves as such. That is an attack and it leads to negative experiences, not enjoyable ones.
(Note: It’s not really relevant, but I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist.)
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Excellent analysis, Boothby. Seriously. I hadn't even looked at it that way. But wait. My arguments were essentially based on the ad hominim attack. So where does that leave us?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Saying a certain group of people, to which you may belong, posesses a certain negative trait is not a personal attack. I think OSC has had to defend this very same position several times on various other threads.
I don't agree with this, but even if I did, it is still something that creates an environment where people do not feel free to discuss their ideas and learn from each other.
quote: But if you feel attacked, Amancer, by my belief that most atheists are condescending torwards theists, I can't help that.
Yes, you can. You can choose to not make an inflammatory comment that in no way furthers discussion but instead polarizes people against you. Saying you found Penn or his reasoning condescending would be fine. But you said you found ALL atheists condescending, although you later amended that to just all atheists with thought out beliefs. You are directly calling many people on this board condescending who have done nothing to show themselves as such. That is an attack and it leads to negative experiences, not enjoyable ones.
(Note: It’s not really relevant, but I consider myself an agnostic not an atheist.)
Well, saying that I have to be careful about what I say for fear of offending someone or creating a negative environment is called "political correctness," and there is nothing more restictive to free speech than that. If you refrain from expressing yourself for fear of being placed in an uncomfortable position, that's your problem. And calling people on this board condescending when they have done nothing to show themselves as such? I beg to differ. Now please, don't be so sensitive. If there is anything I am 100% certain of, it is that you are a nice person, and I don't mean to hurt your feelings.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: The accusations of "hostile" or "condescending" serve to attempt to defuse the opponent's argument by discrediting the person making the argument (sort of a passive-agressive ad-hominem attack). Nicely done.
I can't help but feel that one of the people you are talking to is me since I first used the word hostile. I certainly was not trying to discredit Resh or to make a passive-agressive attack. In my opinion, Resh was creating negative interactions. It occured to me that this might not be intentional and so I was trying to explain how I was feeling to Resh so that he could hopefully see where I was coming from and possibly modify his interactions to be more positive. I do not think that in this context saying he was coming across as "hostile" was in any way the ad-hominem attack that you describe.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Deleted last post because it didn't make sense.
No, you are right, Amancer. The only one really guilty of ad hominum is me, though that was in essence my entire argument. Atheists are condescending. The funny thing is that people who wanted to engage me did so by being condescending!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resh, I have to say I'm impressed with the way you're handling this. You could have easily interpreted the last several posts as attacks, but instead you considered what people had to say and tried to find some common ground. To me, that's the whole fun of debating.
Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I really wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I wrote that. I just saw the whole situation as related to the general approach of discrediting intellectual discourse common in many theological discussions (well, coomon to the side that is trying to make the case for theism/deism).
The "It's not fair--you're beong condescending (or hostile)" approach.
It's actually a corollary to Sywak's Third Rule of Theological Debate.
But here's the solution: all of you (both sides of the aisle) need to grow some thicker skin, and just get over it. And stop trying to side-track the debate/discussion/argument. Sheesh.
Posts: 1862 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Really though, after a bunch of people (myself included) have just jumped on Resh and he's tried to find common ground, it doesn't seem all that nice to attack him.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: Do you think we could agree that ad hominum attacks are something that should be avoided in favor of more respectful means of discussion?
Normally yes, but the whole debate was based on the ad hominim. In that situation, I think there is no avoiding it. Unless it went something like this: "Atheists are condescending, except the ones involved in this debate."
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I knew it was a joke. And even if it wasn't, I really don't take anything personally on an internet message board.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
That's untrue - for most of us, although of course the jerky atheists are out there.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
