strawmen of god

[SnakeLord]

Simple knowledge of terminology and the relationship between them

So, your definition of 'theory' is "simple knowledge of terminology.."? Intriguing.

If you've ever sent a car to the garage even though you can get a book all about fixing it, you know exactly what I mean

I know exactly what you mean. Being a mental health professional I see it all the time. I'm like: "lg, you're not altogether sane", but they just don't accept the fact that I'm a professional on the matter and, being completely uneducated on the matter, think that they have the ability to say otherwise. It's like me, a non-mechanic - arguing over whether my car is in healthy condition or not. How would I know?

Now, I know you of all people would be the last to try and argue against a professional.

You know exactly what I mean.

 

[iceaura]

You state that cargo cultism is just as much a (deluded) projection as the notion of being resurrected after death.

I said nothing about "deluded" - otherwise, yes. Your point?

You don't address the obvious fact that ship manufacture and trade routes are nowhere near as mysterious as life and how exists within an entity.

You insist on oversimplifying cargo cult beliefs, and comparing these oversimplifications (misrepresentations, they would be) unfavorably with the most sophisticated (cherrypicked) of the resurrection cult beliefs. That is a strawman argument - a type specimen of the breed.

{1}At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. {2} Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism.

What a pile that is.

OK:

1) A set of four very different assertions, presented as if they were parenthetically interchangeable: the difference between "support" and "fail to undermine" is very significant - often, it is the crux of the debate in these matters.

What else is screwy here - - - - blurs the distinction between religion and theism, as is common among theists (who seem to have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging atheistic spirituality even, let alone religion); there is no evidence of the count - the one to one asserted match is not supported, and no allowance made for the implications of the fundamental differences between various real atheistic and theistic stances; the argument is of popularity, not reason or evidence - we are to suppose that the simple fact of equal numbers points to comparable reason and integrity;
2) the conclusion here follows from only one of the four premise combinations, and even if given applies to only a small minority of atheists;

we note that the word "unequivocally" plays a common role in one of the standard strawman setups, in which atheistic reasoning is misrepresented as making claims of definite knowledge more easily handled than the ones normally at issue;

and the validity of any actual, given, atheistic argument against any actual, given deity, is not addressed.

Overall, of course, we see that the theist's rhetorical technique here, a typical one, is to lead the discussion away from any consideration of questions asked, points made, issues raised, etc, that seem to present difficulties to the theist; and further into the thicket of new vocabulary and ever-changing focus of assertion, all of it vague and mutable.

We were discussing the theists and atheists here, on this forum, perhaps generalizable but such attempts founded in present example - and present day, nine years into the 21st century.

 

[lightgigantic]

Looks like a shrink is one professional you might want to avoid.

I think most people would avoid a shrink who doesn't have their interests at heart - same with a doctor, lawyer, car mechanic, or and pretty much any other professional you can think of.

So much for professionalism, especially when it doesn't suit your means. But perhaps you don't want to know the truth about yourself since you would have to put trust in the advisor, you know, the professional guy you adore so much.

actually much about being a professional is knowing how to secure the trust of the client. Sure there are a few Machiavellian techniques but for the main stay its about service delivery, seeing to the client's needs, etc etc. Of course if a client doesn't have a need for a professional, like say a healthy person and a doctor, or an atheist and a transcendentalist, then the client is not expressing any need ... which no doubt is a contributing factor to the caliber of discourse you enjoy delivering in forums like these ....

You obviously judge a book by its cover. I never thought for minute that you would adhere to stereotyping or prejudice but the world is full of surprises. You really should get out more. My investment guy is a retired factory worker & my mechanic is a self taught kid, both excellent and neither of which fit your description of the educated professional.

So what?

Any retired factory worker can give you the low down on the trade markets?
Any kid next door can service your vehicle?

Or is it that we hold certain characteristics as representative of a persons capability to perform tasks?

 

[lightgigantic]

So, your definition of 'theory' is "simple knowledge of terminology.."? Intriguing.

and the relationship between the terms, which for some reason, you edited out in your response.

I know exactly what you mean. Being a mental health professional I see it all the time. I'm like: "lg, you're not altogether sane", but they just don't accept the fact that I'm a professional on the matter and, being completely uneducated on the matter, think that they have the ability to say otherwise. It's like me, a non-mechanic - arguing over whether my car is in healthy condition or not. How would I know?

probably because you lack the necessary professional skills to secure the trust of the client ..... something the mental health industry is infamous for BTW, at least in its mainstream applications.

Now, I know you of all people would be the last to try and argue against a professional.

You know exactly what I mean.

Actually I bet if you applied your theory that all theists are clinically insane in your professional environment you would be on the dole queue. IOW just because you are a professional doesn't mean that the general public has no means to assess your degree of performance and capability.

 

[lightgigantic]

I said nothing about "deluded" - otherwise, yes. Your point?

errr ... so you want us to believe that you hold cargo cultism as a perfectly respectable perspective on reality. Like, if your wife took up the idea tomorrow, that would be totally cool with you?

You insist on oversimplifying cargo cult beliefs, and comparing these oversimplifications (misrepresentations, they would be) unfavorably with the most sophisticated (cherrypicked) of the resurrection cult beliefs. That is a strawman argument - a type specimen of the breed.
What a pile that is.

Its more that we actually have a salient means of contextualizing the claims of cargo cultists and a comparatively complete absence in regards to life after death (mainly due to the difficulties in determining life while still alive)

OK:

1) A set of four very different assertions, presented as if they were parenthetically interchangeable: the difference between "support" and "fail to undermine" is very significant - often, it is the crux of the debate in these matters.

regardless, you find equal parlay for representation in the two disposed groups
:shrug:

What else is screwy here - - - - blurs the distinction between religion and theism, as is common among theists (who seem to have a great deal of difficulty acknowledging atheistic spirituality even, let alone religion); there is no evidence of the count - the one to one asserted match is not supported, and no allowance made for the implications of the fundamental differences between various real atheistic and theistic stances; the argument is of popularity, not reason or evidence - we are to suppose that the simple fact of equal numbers points to comparable reason and integrity;

I think the point the writer is making in their historical analysis of atheism, is that this "blurring" and call for "evidence", as you put it, are fine examples of atheists simplifying a contended question.

2) the conclusion here follows from only one of the four premise combinations, and even if given applies to only a small minority of atheists;

we note that the word "unequivocally" plays a common role in one of the standard strawman setups, in which atheistic reasoning is misrepresented as making claims of definite knowledge more easily handled than the ones normally at issue;

The article makes clear that that specific conclusion is representative of the idealism of the new atheists (and perhaps a renaissance of the earlier idealism of two centuries earlier). Such idealism however, finds popular representation on this forum.

and the validity of any actual, given, atheistic argument against any actual, given deity, is not addressed.

Its under a different tab
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/meaning.html

The science tab was more about addressing the problems of using science to lend rhetoric to the atheist (or even theist) position

Overall, of course, we see that the theist's rhetorical technique here, a typical one, is to lead the discussion away from any consideration of questions asked, points made, issues raised, etc, that seem to present difficulties to the theist; and further into the thicket of new vocabulary and ever-changing focus of assertion, all of it vague and mutable.

others beg to differ .. and can even offer substantial examples and the historical contexts they appear in

However, historians now broadly concur that any simple story of the supposed conflict between science and religion (and for that matter any simple story of their harmony) is problematic.[6]

We were discussing the theists and atheists here, on this forum, perhaps generalizable but such attempts founded in present example - and present day, nine years into the 21st century.

The problem is however that the issue is completely embroiled in issues of historical significance.

 

[SnakeLord]

and the relationship between the terms, which for some reason, you edited out in your response.

I left it out because the statement doesn't make any actual sense. What is the definition of 'theory'? "knowledge of the term and relationship between the terms".... Oh my goodness.

probably because you lack the necessary professional skills to secure the trust of the client

Your claim has no valid or evidenced basis. You're just wafting gas. However, it's ignoring the point - something you are quite the professional at.

Actually I bet if you applied your theory that all theists are clinically insane..

There's that bad usage of "theory" once again. Secondly, I don't remember saying "all". Unless you are "all" that is.

Anyway..

 

[lightgigantic]

I left it out because the statement doesn't make any actual sense. What is the definition of 'theory'? "knowledge of the term and relationship between the terms".... Oh my goodness.

I'll say!

Why don't we go back to something more simple.

Tell us what difficulties you have in comprehending the italics in this statement.

A tradesman is a skilled manual worker in a particular trade or craft. Economically and socially, a tradesman's status is considered between a laborer and a professional, with a high degree of both practical and theoretical knowledge of their trade.

Your claim has no valid or evidenced basis. You're just wafting gas. However, it's ignoring the point - something you are quite the professional at.

Another snazzy way to make your way to the dole queue is to express to your superiors that there is no requirement for your clients to trust you.

There's that bad usage of "theory" once again. Secondly, I don't remember saying "all". Unless you are "all" that is.

Anyway..

hehe

and I don't remember you detailing any theist who you've remarked as being sane

 

[SnakeLord]

Tell us what difficulties you have in comprehending the italics in this statement

None... except for the fact that it doesn't answer my question :bugeye:

Another snazzy way... *waffle*

Has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

and I don't remember you detailing any theist who you've remarked as being sane

Oh I see. So basically unless I specifically state that someone is sane, it automatically means I think they're insane? Yeah, good one.

Anyway.. I think we're done here.

 

[iceaura]

errr ... so you want us to believe that you hold cargo cultism as a perfectly respectable perspective on reality.

Nothing but strawmen, from you. Continually.

This rhetorical trick of yours looks deliberate and intended. Can you honestly be misunderstanding so completely, and so conveniently for yourself in every case?

Its more that we actually have a salient means of contextualizing the claims of cargo cultists

Do you? Then employ them, rather than the strawman arguments you present so far.

1) A set of four very different assertions, presented as if they were parenthetically interchangeable: the difference between "support" and "fail to undermine" is very significant - often, it is the crux of the debate in these matters.
”
regardless, you find equal parlay for representation in the two disposed groups

Parley, you represent group disposition of the two equal finds? Just looking for your argument - - - - it's right around here somewhere - - - - it's made of straw - - - - -

Overall, of course, we see that the theist's rhetorical technique here, a typical one, is to lead the discussion away from any consideration of questions asked, points made, issues raised, etc, that seem to present difficulties to the theist; and further into the thicket of new vocabulary and ever-changing focus of assertion, all of it vague and mutable.
”
others beg to differ .. and can even offer substantial examples and the historical contexts they appear in.

However, historians now broadly concur that any simple story of the supposed conflict between science and religion (and for that matter any simple story of their harmony) is problematic

Let's see, what were we talking about - - - - - oh yeah, a couple of specific features of your arguments on this forum, as in a particular way typical of the theistic arguments here and in similar venues. Do you imagine these obfuscations of yours to completely embody the history of discussion between religion and science?

So that my comments on your inability or unwillingeness to engage in any straightforward and legitimate manner also apply to all argument on this subject by everyone throughout history? I would not go so far. I have encountered honest and engaged argument from theists, in the past and elsewhere.

The problem is however that the issue is completely embroiled in issues of historical significance.

That's a poor excuse for not addressing any of the questions, arguments, observations, etc, presented in this thread so far.

 

[lightgigantic]

None... except for the fact that it doesn't answer my question :bugeye:

There's one usage of the word "theoretical".
Just curious why it causes problems when used in the same sense in a different context.

Has nothing whatsoever to do with anything.

No its right on track.
You spouted something about being a professional and beyond rebuke.

I pointed out how the general public can still scrutinize your capabilities (usually in the form of key performance indicators) in a manner remarkably similar to what your employer/funding body applies.

IOW its one thing for an outsider to attempt to epistemologically overhaul a discipline ("Y'know I'm no brain surgeon, but ....") .....its something else to analyze the worth of a practitioner according to the ways and means that they hold as valid.

Oh I see. So basically unless I specifically state that someone is sane, it automatically means I think they're insane? Yeah, good one.

being an atheist, I didn't think you would have problems with concluding what an absence of evidence indicates.

 

[lightgigantic]

Nothing but strawmen, from you. Continually.

This rhetorical trick of yours looks deliberate and intended. Can you honestly be misunderstanding so completely, and so conveniently for yourself in every case?

If not to relegate the case of religion to its lowest possible rung (ie one of delusion), for what other reason are you trying to draw a comparison with cargo cultism?

Do you? Then employ them, rather than the strawman arguments you present so far.

On the contrary, if you want to suggest that they are not, I think you have to employ some sort of argument to suggest some means to rebuke the common knowledge of the state of affairs of shipping.


IOW you have to provide some sort of means to advocate why the phenomena of cargo cultiosm is (or rather, was, since they're practically non-existent now) is not a mere consequence of trade and industry of the 20th century

.

Parley, you represent group disposition of the two equal finds? Just looking for your argument - - - - it's right around here somewhere - - - - it's made of straw - - - - -

actually if you scrutinize the readings you will find that anyone who advocates athesim/theism on the strength of science is offering a strawman. Unless your bias prohibits you, anyone can see that for every scientific finding meant to establish/deconstruct you find advocates on both sides.

Let's see, what were we talking about - - - - - oh yeah, a couple of specific features of your arguments on this forum, as in a particular way typical of the theistic arguments here and in similar venues. Do you imagine these obfuscations of yours to completely embody the history of discussion between religion and science?

Well I do offer references while you simply persist with the values of your opinion.

Not sure why you would call that an obfuscation however ... unless its another fine example of your ideology running riot again.

So that my comments on your inability or unwillingeness to engage in any straightforward and legitimate manner also apply to all argument on this subject by everyone throughout history? I would not go so far. I have encountered honest and engaged argument from theists, in the past and elsewhere.

in case you haven't noticed, a key ingredient to discussion are the historical incidents that frame them. Love it or loathe it, issues like atheism, particularly in regards to science, are supported by a host of things that give it its current flavour

That's a poor excuse for not addressing any of the questions, arguments, observations, etc, presented in this thread so far.

On the contrary, an excellent manner to address an argument or observation is to take a little look at the historical events that frame it.

For instance one can take the idealism of the new atheists and see what it is (if anything) they are offering that is different from their counterparts two centuries earlier.

 

[iceaura]

Nothing but strawmen, from you. Continually.

This rhetorical trick of yours looks deliberate and intended. Can you honestly be misunderstanding so completely, and so conveniently for yourself in every case?
”
If not to relegate the case of religion to its lowest possible rung (ie one of delusion), for what other reason are you trying to draw a comparison with cargo cultism?

It is you, not me, who introduced cargo cults in this thread. Post #5. Now you attempt to deflect the discussion of them into defense of personal motive. OK: What was your motive?

in case you haven't noticed, a key ingredient to discussion are the historical incidents that frame them.

Sounds good. A key technique of yours is to refer to the existence of such ingredients without then engaging in the discussion, in an apparent attempt to avoid the discussion by changing the subject.

actually if you scrutinize the readings you will find that anyone who advocates athesim/theism on the strength of science is offering a strawman

That's not true, I find no such thing: meanwhile, you don't offer argument for it, and you have been avoiding that topic for this entire thread.

Do you have anything to offer on topic?

 

[lightgigantic]

It is you, not me, who introduced cargo cults in this thread. Post #5. Now you attempt to deflect the discussion of them into defense of personal motive. OK: What was your motive?

my point was simple - to show an example of contrived religiosity. Your attempt is to show that it stands just as contrived as any other theistic claim (by trying to draw a parallel with resurrection/life after death) .... an attempt (strawman, as it were) that fails for reasons already outlined

Sounds good. A key technique of yours is to refer to the existence of such ingredients without then engaging in the discussion, in an apparent attempt to avoid the discussion by changing the subject.

huh?
Its not clear how a discussion of the historical incidents that frame key ingredients is am avoidance of discussion.
:shrug:

That's not true, I find no such thing:

what do you need?
neon lights?

However, historians now broadly concur that any simple story of the supposed conflict between science and religion (and for that matter any simple story of their harmony) is problematic.[6] As John Hedley Brooke has pointed out, for every nineteenth century person considering these issues who followed figures such as Thomas Henry Huxley or Francis Galton in regarding evolution as devastating for religious belief, there were others, such as the Oxford theologian Aubrey Moore, who regarded Darwin's evolutionary theory as an opportunity for religion.[7]
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/science.html

 

[iceaura]

my point was simple - to show an example of contrived religiosity.

That would require you to show contrivance, relevance, and so forth.

But your actual point was to assume contrivance, assume a false parallel with other assumed contrivances, handwave past the relevant parallels with religiosity you have assumed is not contrived (begging the question on the way), and declare an actual argument against the disputed criticism of your religion thereby supported.

Its not clear how a discussion of the historical incidents that frame key ingredients is am avoidance of discussion.

It's not clear where you have attempted any such thing.

what do you need?
neon lights?

An argument, some evidence. You appear to have no comprehension of what a strawman argument is, and exactly where its invalidity lies - which would explain a lot, actually.

 

[wynn]

This is for SnakeLord -

No its right on track.
You spouted something about being a professional and beyond rebuke.

I pointed out how the general public can still scrutinize your capabilities (usually in the form of key performance indicators) in a manner remarkably similar to what your employer/funding body applies.

IOW its one thing for an outsider to attempt to epistemologically overhaul a discipline ("Y'know I'm no brain surgeon, but ....") .....its something else to analyze the worth of a practitioner according to the ways and means that they hold as valid.

There is the saying "Never go to a doctor who has pot plants in their office that are either in poor shape or dead."
There is some truth in this - because a caring, scrupulous person (as a doctor should be) will most likely also take good care of their plants; so if the plants are well taken care of, the doctor might be someone who will take good care of their patients as well.
This is far from being a safe way to assess a doctor's expertise, of course, but it can help.

Lays don't have much at their disposal to assess the actual expertise of a doctor or other professionals, but reputation, general demeanor, personal hygiene are some general indicators to go by, and I think quite reliable.


I have met a few mental health professionals in online forums, and I have to say I am terrified if I would actually be placed in their care.

 

[scifes]

Sorry, you've got me again. No reason? There's always reason - i.e they believe it to be so. Doesn't mean they're not wrong.

lol you poor man, why would they believe it to be so? cuz they're crazy?

Because it was easy, at the tag end, to drop the irrelevancy to my reply - I was too lazy to delete the other irrelevancies in the middle.

more like it was so accurate and on the spot that you couldn't even offer a coherent sentence against it, which i'm not sure i can say to your other replies..

This is for SnakeLord -



There is the saying "Never go to a doctor who has pot plants in their office that are either in poor shape or dead."
There is some truth in this - because a caring, scrupulous person (as a doctor should be) will most likely also take good care of their plants; so if the plants are well taken care of, the doctor might be someone who will take good care of their patients as well.
This is far from being a safe way to assess a doctor's expertise, of course, but it can help.

Lays don't have much at their disposal to assess the actual expertise of a doctor or other professionals, but reputation, general demeanor, personal hygiene are some general indicators to go by, and I think quite reliable.


I have met a few mental health professionals in online forums, and I have to say I am terrified if I would actually be placed in their care.

and so good healthy plants outside a doctors office might not mean he is good or bad but are a worthy indicator to take into consideration same with the amount of people believing in god or leprechauns, which makes a comparison with the goal of dropping that factor of decision in a god related argument is a logical fallacy called a strawman.