Arguments you're tired of hearing from fundies?

[Ben]

It seems to me that in a discussion on GD, it's almost inevitable that sooner or later a fundamentalist Christian will whip out Pascal's wager. Moreover, they don't say anything like, "What do you make of Pascal's Wager?" or, "Pascal's Wager seems like a sound argument to me- do you feel that there's a flaw in it?" Instead they act like they and their friends are the only people on earth who have ever heard of it, and so they say, "Oh, yeah, Mr. Atheist? Well, get a load of this: if you believe and God doesn't exist, it's no big deal, right? But if you don't believe and God DOES exist..." Every non-fundie groans inwardly at hearing this, because the argument can be refuted in a few sentences.

I'm toying with the idea of making a FAQ that would list a lot of these common arguments which every atheist has heard a thousand times, along with one-paragraph rebuttals. I'd like to keep this discussion away from C/E questions, since talk.origins already has one-stop FAQs for the most common creationist arguments.

For starters, I'd list:

1. Pascal's Wager (It assumes the very God which it tries to prove.)
2. You can't have morality without God. (Would you become a child molester if God told you tomorrow that you'd get to heaven no matter what?)
3. Atheism is a religion. (I could answer this in a paragraph, but I can't summarize it into a sentence.)
4. Just because you're blind doesn't mean that other people can't see.
5. The phrase "Separation of Church and State" doesn't appear in the Constitution.
6. Einstein believed in God (this one could be answered with the short quote from Einstein.)
7. The Bible says that it's the word of God. (Is it my imagination, or is this less popular than it was 10 years ago?)

One could also include things like, "The Founding Fathers were Christians," and so on, although I'd like to focus on questions that could be answered with a short paragraph.

I may also include "Christianity must be true, or my whole life is a lie- so you need to become a Christian too!"

Any suggestions?

-Ben

[McMurphy]

8. We are one nation Under God. - That phrase was, I believe, added during the McCarthy witchhunts to weed out Communists.

[McMurphy]

9. But everything on earth is so perfect it must have been made by someone else - It's a near infinite universe by all accounts, it had to happen somewhere

[Kalt]

i've learned to just tune those out.

I love their little pet "theories" about how the world really can be only 6000 years old.

And about how evolution is just a theory.. and creationism is just a theory (which they "know" to be true)... so why should they both not be taught in schools?

Fundies should be sterilized IMO.

[tracer]

Ben wrote:

I'm toying with the idea of making a FAQ that would list a lot of these common arguments which every atheist has heard a thousand times, along with one-paragraph rebuttals.
Sorry, but someone already beat you to it 5 years ago:

http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/arguments.html

[Kaje]

Originally posted by McMurphy
8. We are one nation Under God. - That phrase was, I believe, added during the McCarthy witchhunts to weed out Communists.

Along with this, any reference to God in an official Government capacity. Our coins sporting, "In God We Trust", which later became the nat'l motto. It was all plotted by fundies in positions of power (I believe the coin thing came when a fundie became head of the treasury, and was actually disapproved of by T. Roosevent, and then it became the motto in said mccarthy era)


Originally posted by McMurphy
9. But everything on earth is so perfect it must have been made by someone else - It's a near infinite universe by all accounts, it had to happen somewhere.

Or there's the argument that it's only "perfect" because it's the world we grew up in... that is to say, we have no reason to think our world is any better than anything else out there except that it contains the ingredient for "life" as WE know it

[tracer]

Kaje wrote:

Our coins sporting, "In God We Trust", which later became the nat'l motto. It was all plotted by fundies in positions of power (I believe the coin thing came when a fundie became head of the treasury, and was actually disapproved of by T. Roosevent, and then it became the motto in said mccarthy era)
While Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase did indeed get the ball rolling on the whole "In God We Trust" slogan during the Civil War, it did not -- and could not -- appear on U.S. coins until both houses of Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864.

President Teddy Roosevelt disapproved of having the motto "In God We Trust" appear on U.S. coinage -- but not because of any convictions about the separation of church and state. He felt that having any reference to the Deity stamped on money was degrading to said Deity. (It was a Jesus-and-the-moneychangers-in-the-temple kind of a thing.) Although T. Roosevelt managed to get the 1907 Gold Double Eagle coins minted without the Motto on them, Congress quickly passed an Act that made the Motto mandatory on all coins that had previously carried the Motto.

"In God We Trust" made it onto paper money ($1 silver certificates) in 1957, the same year Congress voted it our National Motto.

[Kaje]

I was searching for the site where I read about the phrase being put on coins... and I came across this odd little tidbit:
quoted on http://www.jccn.iowa-city.ia.us/~pilgrim/motto.html
"The motto was derived from the line “And this be our motto, 'In God is our trust,'” in the U.S. National Anthem, “The Star-Spangled Banner.”"

then I saw it repeated on the another site... what's that about? Granted it takes me a little bit to get all the words to the national anthem... but I don't remember that line

[Captain Amazing]

Fourth Verse, sixth line. The fourth verse is:

O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home and the war's desolation;
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the heav'n-rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


I'm not sure if that was Chase's source or not. though.

[Kaje]

whoa damn... i always thought it ended with "...home of the brave"... Is all that officially part of our national song or just of the original poem?

[RoboDude]

10. "We need to post the Ten Commandments in schools to teach children proper morals." What, you think a plaque with a quote from some old piece of literature is going to turn bullies into Boy Scouts? Ypu might see the Bible as the ultimate guide to life, but many kids don't, and putting excerpts from it won't have any effect on them, except to piss off people who like to have the government obey the First Amendment.

[MrO]

The assumption that we need redemption (another thread is running on that one now, but seems to me pretty soundly and easily refuted).

The assumption that it is possible to choose, actively, one's real beliefs. Even if I lose every other debate with a believer, I still can't suddenly decide to believe in a fairy tale. Couldn't if I wanted to.

[MrO]

Oh, I think that would be 11 and 12, if we're counting.

[rjung]

All of them.

[ITR champion]

My personal favorite:

"The big bang theory must be wrong because scientists can't explain what caused the big bang/ scientists can't explain what happened before the big bang."

[Kaje]

Originally posted by ITR champion
My personal favorite:

"The big bang theory must be wrong because scientists can't explain what caused the big bang/ scientists can't explain what happened before the big bang."

of course in the tradition of providing arguments against theses... one obvious way to respond to this is to ask "What created God?" or "What was before God?"

[quixotic78]

I love it when Christians tell me that if I simply open myself to Jesus, take that one leap of faith, then he'll love me, I'll see the light, my breath will be fresher, birds will sing more sweetly, etc. When I retort that I was scarily close to a Fundie myself for four years, they can only retort that I wasn't REALLY a Christian. So, on top of it being patronizing, simplistic, and insulting... it's irrefutable!

Bah.
Quix

[Johanna]

<aside from the main question>
The assumption of the OP is that the only opposition to speak of is between atheists on the one hand and fundies on the other. This ignores the existence of liberal believers. From my POV, the fundies are a scourge toward those of us who think religion should be open-minded and gentle rather than narrow-minded and harsh. We are the people who suffer more from fundies because we have them in our face all the time. Atheists being on the outside can avoid them more easily.
</aside>

[amateurvisionary]

I can almost relate to a homosexual coming out of the closet, i am a recovering religionist and i'm trying to keep that fact away from my parents. Damn, at least if I was gay I would still go to church. Back to the OP (sort of), I'd just like a preacher to do a sermon on the Council of Nicea, or gnostics. It's always fascinated me, the sheer arbitrariness (yes, that is so a word, even if I just made it up) of religion in general. I've been there, and I don't think Jesus likes me any more. But speaking of fanatics, what bugs me as well are evolutionist fanatics. Now, i'm not gonna preach "creation science" here, i'm not into that shit. It just seems a tad bit of a leap of faith to accept evolution as fact. Come on. I'm not discounting it, and I'm not trying to start an arguement about it. I just thought I'd vent since we were talking fundies. BTW, I want to kill everyon who has ever appeared on TBN.

[Kaje]

Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
The assumption of the OP is that the only opposition to speak of is between atheists on the one hand and fundies on the other. This ignores the existence of liberal believers.

some of the arguments presented here are equally as useful to you and those like-minded... for example the seperation of church and state (both in the form of not being specifically mentioned in the const and in the motto/coin/10 commandments in school things) are an issue of contention among Christians.

I often try to argue from various perspectives, and sometimes it is from the perspective of a "liberal believer", at least what i took that to mean which was a person who believed the Bible to be a manmade metaphorical guidebook with some usefulness but not ultimate accuracy/infallibility.. I'm not saying that the term "liberal believer" is defined as such, but that such a person would be a believer who is liberal about those beliefs... anyway in such a position many of the points made here are valid for arguments

[Esprix]

Throw in something about homosexuality and you got me. :)

"Bart Simpson: I think sharing is overrated too. And helping others. And what's all this crap I've been hearing about tolerance?

Homer Simpson: Your ideas are intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. But I think I'll go on the retreat anyway."

Esprix

[tracer]

RoboDude wrote:

10. "We need to post the Ten Commandments in schools to teach children proper morals." What, you think a plaque with a quote from some old piece of literature is going to turn bullies into Boy Scouts?
What always bugs me about the Ten Commandments arguments is that the Fundies who try to sneak it past the legislature always seem to make the following claim:



"The Ten Commandments are a good moral edict whether you're religious or not! Looky here:
Commandment 5: Honor thy father and thy mother
Commandment 6: Thou shalt not murder
Commandment 7: Thou shalt not commit adultery
Commandment 8: Thou shalt not steal
Commandment 9: Thou shalt not bear false witness
Commandment 10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's stuff
Surely, you can't object to these moral edicts!"



Of course, said Fundy lobbyists always leave out the first 4 commandments, which say things like, "I am the LORD your God, thou shalt have no other gods before me."

[Lemur866]

Originally posted by amateurvisionary
But speaking of fanatics, what bugs me as well are evolutionist fanatics. Now, i'm not gonna preach "creation science" here, i'm not into that shit. It just seems a tad bit of a leap of faith to accept evolution as fact. Come on. I'm not discounting it, and I'm not trying to start an arguement about it. I just thought I'd vent since we were talking fundies. BTW, I want to kill everyon who has ever appeared on TBN.

Goodness. Not this again. Y'know, there is a natural tendancy to believe that if there are two opposing extreme sides that the truth must be somewhere in between. But sometimes one side is 100% wrong and the other side is 100% right. This is one of those cases. The evidence supporting evolution is so overwhelming it can only be rejected by rejecting the validity of the scientific method. But, I'll cut you some slack and assume that you were the product of the American public school system, and so probably didn't learn anything about evolution and what you did learn was wrong.

If you have questions about evolution, try visting http://www.talkorigins.org, for a start. I have the feeling that don't even have enough information for a debate yet.

[Ben]

Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
<aside from the main question>
The assumption of the OP is that the only opposition to speak of is between atheists on the one hand and fundies on the other. This ignores the existence of liberal believers. From my POV, the fundies are a scourge toward those of us who think religion should be open-minded and gentle rather than narrow-minded and harsh. We are the people who suffer more from fundies because we have them in our face all the time. Atheists being on the outside can avoid them more easily.
</aside>

Koff koff...

"Every non-fundie groans inwardly at hearing this, because the argument can be refuted in a few sentences. "

-Ben

[kniz]

Originally posted by Ben
Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
<aside from the main question>
The assumption of the OP is that the only opposition to speak of is between atheists on the one hand and fundies on the other. This ignores the existence of liberal believers. From my POV, the fundies are a scourge toward those of us who think religion should be open-minded and gentle rather than narrow-minded and harsh. We are the people who suffer more from fundies because we have them in our face all the time. Atheists being on the outside can avoid them more easily.
</aside>

Koff koff...

"Every non-fundie groans inwardly at hearing this, because the argument can be refuted in a few sentences. "

-Ben

.............................Lets see them :rolleyes:

[Ben]

Originally posted by kniz
....Lets see them :rolleyes:

Pascal's Wager, as usually stated by fundamentalist christians, goes as follows:

If you do believe in Jesus Christ...

...and Jesus Christ does exist, you spend an eternity in heaven.

...and Jesus Christ doesn't exist, then you lose nothing.

If you don't believe in Jesus Christ...

...and Jesus Christ doesn't exist, you lose nothing.

...and Jesus Christ does exist, you spend an eternity in hell.

Ergo, believing is a better bet than non believing.

The refutation, in one sentence:

How do you know that Christianity isn't false, and that God (by which I mean Allah, Vishnu, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, etc.) doesn't send atheists to heaven and Christians to hell?

Come now, kniz. Do you really think that Pascal's Wager is so irrefutable that you can roll your eyes at me contemptuously when I simply say that it can be refuted in a few sentences? You could, at the very least, have enough horse sense to figure out what the refutation is before you act like only an idiot could agree with it.

:rolleyes:

-Ben

[Junior Spaceman]

How about the atheist equivalent of Pascal's wager, which is asking 'Why do bad things happen to good people?', as if nobody has ever faced this question before. Of course, asking the question has to be followed by ignoring any answers that use religious themes, such as an afterlife, or people not being in a position to judge either 'good people' or 'bad things'. It's not so much that it's not an interesting question, it's more that people who bring it up (just like Pascal's Wager), think that:
* It is a stunningly original debating device, and
* It is an unanswerable attack.

There's also the argument which goes something like: 'Assuming [usually expressed as "Since we know"] that there is no God, I will now prove that there is no God.' A related example is saying 'I will now prove that the Bible was not written by God, starting by analysing it as a text that was written by men'. This always makes for great arguments in which neither side even agrees on the terms of the argument, let alone the way to come to some sort of understanding.

[minty green]

Since when has an atheist ever used "good things to bad people" as an anti-religion argument? Or attempted to prove the existence of that which s/he assumes?

[amateurvisionary]

Okydoke buddy, yeah, I went to public school. But praise ye gods that I did not even pretend that I was there to learn. I became educated on my on time. I was not trying to get into a fact/fiction debate. I only meant to point out that when people who accept evolution attempt to preach it and convert people, well it pisses me off. If the idiots choose not to accept science, leave them the hell alone. If they want to argue, argue. All to often I see evolutionists with an almost evangelical attitude. I despise that. Actualy, I despise evangelism in general. Again, I don't want to debate evolution, I honestly don't care that much about it. But don't talk down to me boy.

[MrO]

Originally posted by amateurvisionary
Okydoke buddy, yeah, I went to public school. But praise ye gods that I did not even pretend that I was there to learn. I became educated on my on time.

Just think how articulate he would be if he had pretended to be there for learning.

Oh, no offense intended, amateurvisionary. I'm a recovered religious person myself. But really, relax a little, slow down. You aren't overdoing the coffee, are you?

Incidentally, some schools can be pretty good places, for those who know how to learn.

[astorian]

Catholic though I am, I've never thought Pascal's Wager was a very persuasive argument for Christianity. Rather, it's a logical argument for devotion to whatever religion offers you the best deal. That is, which god is offering the most pleasant afterlife for the least effort? THAT's the god Pascal's Wager leads us to.

But as for the other things Ben is tired of hearing...

4) A Christian who finds genuine joy in his faith is not going to dismiss what he's experienced just because Ben finds it hokey. If Ben is tired of hearing this phrase, I suggest he clam up whenever he's tempted to scoff at other people's spiritual experiences.

5) Say Ben, are you ALSO tired of hearing that 2 + 2 = 4? Tired of hearing that "cat" is spelled C-A-T? Tired of hearing that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address? Well, TOO BAD! Those are FACTS, and nobody is obliged to stop stating FACTS, just because poor baby Ben is "tired" of hearing them. It's ALSO a fact that "separation of church and state" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't wish to be reminded of this fact, stop trying to tell "fundies" otherwise. In THIS instance, at least, THEY'RE 100% right and YOU are 100% wrong.

6) If "fundies" have tried to argue that Einstein was a Christian, they're full of beans. And he certainly wasn't a conventionally religious Jew. On the other hand, EInstein was one of those historic figures (Lincoln was another) whose statements on religion ran from A to Z. If Ben wanted to "prove" that Lincoln was an atheist who thought religion in general (and Christianity in particular) was a cruel hoax, he'd have NO trouble finding evidence of that in Lincoln's writings. On the other hand, if Billy Graham wanted to prove that Lincoln was a devout believer, he could easily find plenty of evidence for THAT in Lincoln's writings, too. So, what were Lincoln's "real" beliefs? It varied! There's no way to state simply what Lincoln believed.

I'm sure that Einstein would have had no use for the "fundies" who conveniently claim him for their side. But his thoughts on "God" were not nearly as simple, derisory or dismissive as Ben would have you think. He expressed a host of opinions on "God," many of which contradict each other. His vision of God certainly bore little resemblance to Jehovah (Einstein's God seems more of an abstract, unifying principle than a personal deity with any great interest in how we live our lives), but that's a far cry from simply calling him an atheist and calling the subject closed.

[kaylasdad99]

Originally posted by astorian
4) A Christian who finds genuine joy in his faith is not going to dismiss what he's experienced just because Ben finds it hokey. If Ben is tired of hearing this phrase, I suggest he clam up whenever he's tempted to scoff at other people's spiritual experiences.[QUOTE]

Ben did mention that he's getting tird of hearing about Pascal's Wager in his travels through Great Debates. I don't think it's too much of a stretch to apply this context to the "list" he has begun constructing. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention, but I haven't noticed Ben popping into "witnessing" threads just to throw ice water onto the genuinely joyful testimonies of Christians. If a poster tries to use the statement "just because you're blind, doesn't mean other people can't see" as an argument for why Ben should adopt the poster's public policy preferences of interpretation of empirical data (and, oddly enough, when I've read such statements, the genuine joy hasn't been quite so evident to me -- not in the way I see it in Polycarp's, or Tris's posts, anyway), it fails as argument.

[QUOTE]5) Say Ben, are you ALSO tired of hearing that 2 + 2 = 4? Tired of hearing that "cat" is spelled C-A-T? Tired of hearing that Abraham Lincoln delivered the Gettysburg Address? Well, TOO BAD! Those are FACTS, and nobody is obliged to stop stating FACTS, just because poor baby Ben is "tired" of hearing them. It's ALSO a fact that "separation of church and state" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't wish to be reminded of this fact, stop trying to tell "fundies" otherwise. In THIS instance, at least, THEY'RE 100% right and YOU are 100% wrong.

Context and accuracy will set you free, my friend. In order for Ben to be 100% wrong in the above example, Ben will have had to state that the Constitution DOES contain the term "separation of church and state". That's the accuracy part. The context part is that Ben is clearly tired of having this fact presented to him as though it has any relevance to whatever subject is currently under discussion, as he is convinced that it doesn't. I, myself, hold the opinion that the fact can only be relevant in a debate about what words, terms and phrases appear in he text on the U.S. Constitution. And I don't recall ever seeing such a debate in his forum.)

[B]6) If "fundies" have tried to argue that Einstein was a Christian, they're full of beans. And he certainly wasn't a conventionally religious Jew. On the other hand, EInstein was one of those historic figures (Lincoln was another) whose statements on religion ran from A to Z. If Ben wanted to "prove" that Lincoln was an atheist who thought religion in general (and Christianity in particular) was a cruel hoax, he'd have NO trouble finding evidence of that in Lincoln's writings. On the other hand, if Billy Graham wanted to prove that Lincoln was a devout believer, he could easily find plenty of evidence for THAT in Lincoln's writings, too. So, what were Lincoln's "real" beliefs? It varied! There's no way to state simply what Lincoln believed.

I'm sure that Einstein would have had no use for the "fundies" who conveniently claim him for their side. But his thoughts on "God" were not nearly as simple, derisory or dismissive as Ben would have you think. He expressed a host of opinions on "God," many of which contradict each other. His vision of God certainly bore little resemblance to Jehovah (Einstein's God seems more of an abstract, unifying principle than a personal deity with any great interest in how we live our lives), but that's a far cry from simply calling him an atheist and calling the subject closed.[B]

I'm not confident that Ben has ever explicitly called Einstein an atheist. If you get to claim that he has implied it in his OP, he should be allowed a similar claim that "fundies" have implied that Einstein believed in Jehovah.

Context.

[astorian]

Kaylasdad:

You're quite right, context makes a lot of difference. Unfortunately, Ben doesn't provide any context in the original post. He just makes a list of lines he's "tired" of hearing.

Do fundamentalists phone Ben while he's having dinner, and yell "Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution"? When he's sitting on a park bench, minding his own business, do fundamentalists run up to Ben and scream "Just because you're blind doesn't mean we can't see"? When he's sound asleep, do fundamentalists spray paint "Einstein believed in God" on his house?

Obviously not. The lines Ben claims to be tired of are NEVER the first line any proselytizer springs on the person he hopes to convert. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they're under attack.

So, I repeat: if Ben is "tired" of hearing "just because you're blind, it doesn't mean others can't see," there's a simple solution: he should refrain from denigrating the spiritual experiences of others.

If he's "tired" of being reminded that the Constitution says NOTHING, I can sympathize! It's ALWAYS tiresome to be wrong, and to have people point out that you're wrong! The solution is simple: don't make false claims about the Constitution, and the "fundies" won't have to correct you! Trust me, Ben, the "fundies" are probably as tired of setting you straight as YOU are of being corrected!

And finally, if you're "tired" of people oversimplifying Einstein's complex beliefs, to make it appear that he was on THEIR side... well, Ben, you could set a good example for the errant "fundies" by ceasing and desisting from that practice yourself.

Have a nice day, now.

[kniz]

Originally posted by Ben
Originally posted by Jomo Mojo
<aside from the main question>
The assumption of the OP is that the only opposition to speak of is between atheists on the one hand and fundies on the other. This ignores the existence of liberal believers. From my POV, the fundies are a scourge toward those of us who think religion should be open-minded and gentle rather than narrow-minded and harsh. We are the people who suffer more from fundies because we have them in our face all the time. Atheists being on the outside can avoid them more easily.
</aside>

Koff koff...

"Every non-fundie groans inwardly at hearing this, because the argument can be refuted in a few sentences. "

-Ben

Then why Ben is your statement linked to Jomo Mojo's question concerning liberal Christians. It appears to me you are saying that what Jomo Mojo said about Liberal Christians can be refuted in a few sentences. In other words I took you to mean that you thought all Christians are fundies. [b]I TAKE PARTICULAR OFFENSE TO THAT[b]. However if that is not what you meant I retract what I said.

I don't really think your argument in a couple of sentences refutes Pascals Wager, but if it makes you happy I'm not going to lie awake at night worrying about you burning in Hell. Sorry, I couldn't resist that.

[minty green]

Originally posted by kniz
if it makes you happy I'm not going to lie awake at night worrying about you burning in Hell.Gee, somehow I doubt Ben is lying awake worrying about that either, kniz.


Don't know what number this is, but I was reminded of another stupid fundamentalist argument earlier this evening: "Salvation is a free gift from God." No, it isn't. If it was a free gift, God wouldn't ask for anything in return.

[Myrr21]

. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they're under attack.
Right, under attack in the "oh no, somebody is defending their rights from my infringement" sense.
It may not be in the Constitution, but it is in the Supreme Court rulings, (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html) and until those change, that's effectively the same (note Stone v Graham, for example).

[kaylasdad99]

astorian

I see the GD context in Ben's example of Pascal's Wager (because he states it), and I extrapolate that context to also apply to his suggested FAQ. You evidently don't agree with either the initial context or the extrapolation, or both. We'll simply have to disagree on what is being observed.

But I'm going to challenge you on the issue of Ben being wrong on the "Separation of Church and State" term appearing in the text of the U.S. Constitution. All you ned to do to meet the challenge is to give me a cite of Ben claiming that the words appear in the text.

[kaylasdad99]

kniz

When Ben made his "(koff koff, etc.)" post, he was recapitulating and emphasizing that all non-fundies (including, one suspects, Liberal Christians) groan inwardly at hearing Pascal's Wager being trotted out by fundies. He was not dismissing Jomo Mojo's observation about Liberal Christians occupying an Unexamined Middle between Fundamentalism and atheism; he was simply clarifying that his example has no Unexamind Middle, because it was binary -- you have your fundies, and you have your non-fundies. The fundies think Pascal's Wager is the keenest bit of logic to come down the pike since William of Ockham brandished his Gillette Double-edge, and the non-fundies (not all of them atheists) roll their eyes when they get confronted with it yet again.

[Kaje]

I'm not sure i see this right... is the "fundy" argument that because "seperation of church and state" does not appear in the constitution that we should begin incorporating church teachings into our laws (more they may already subtly be)?

i mean when you have a case like the faith-based initiatives, by saying "we shouldn't do it cause of sep of church and state", it's just a shorthand way of saying "we don't think the nation should actively support prosyletizing (sp?) especially when its going to be overwhelmingly in a christian direction"... I mean people say "we shouldn't stop a group from helping kids just cause they hang a cross on the wall"... except it's not just a cross on the wall, I mean i remember reading about G.W. 'favorite' group whatever it was and how in a hearing it stated it was proud to have converted some jews... i didn't mean to get into this or hijack or whatever... just got started and couldn't stop

[betenoir]

Originally posted by astorian
The lines Ben claims to be tired of are NEVER the first line any proselytizer springs on the person he hopes to convert. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they're under attack.

Well yes, when they sense they're under attack by those weapons of Satan, intelligence and reason. No wonder Ben hears them so often.



So, I repeat: if Ben is "tired" of hearing "just because you're blind, it doesn't mean others can't see," there's a simple solution: he should refrain from denigrating the spiritual experiences of others.



It may be just me but I would think that calling someone else's spiritual experience of life "blind" might be construed as denigrating? And isn't that what they're doing?




If he's "tired" of being reminded that the Constitution says NOTHING, I can sympathize! It's ALWAYS tiresome to be wrong, and to have people point out that you're wrong! The solution is simple: don't make false claims about the Constitution, and the "fundies" won't have to correct you! Trust me, Ben, the "fundies" are probably as tired of setting you straight as YOU are of being corrected!

As has been pointed out- I think quite existensivly- Ben was of course not suggesting that the Consitution has the phrase "seperation of Church and State" anywhere in it- kaylasdad made the point rather well I think.

And given that it's pretty obvious that Ben made no false claim of any kind, your rant gets kind of silly, doesn't it?



And finally, if you're "tired" of people oversimplifying Einstein's complex beliefs, to make it appear that he was on THEIR side... well, Ben, you could set a good example for the errant "fundies" by ceasing and desisting from that practice yourself.



I can only chuckle.







[/B][/QUOTE]

[BlackKnight]

To return to the OP for a moment, the arguments I'm tired of hearing from fundies:

Pascal's Wager (of course) :)

"The Bible says God exists, and we can believe it becuase it's God's word and therefore can't be wrong."

The "I-witnessed-a-miracle" claim. Like, "I know God exists. Why, just last year my uncle had cancer and now he doesn't! The doctors said he would probably die but now he's just fine. Aren't God's miracles grand?"

[Spectre of Pithecanthropus]

All this harebrained Fundie Filosofy makes me so ashamed of my country :(. It doesn't seem like Europeans have to put up with it. Sometimes I wish my ancestors had never left Europe. But then again, I also wish my ancestors hadn't given up the real estate they owned in Lower Manhattan!

[vanilla]

I've been in churches that have believed the "lost day" legend.

[HubZilla]

At the Internet Infidels MB, they have a list of the "Top ten ways to irritate an Atheist"
http://www.infidels.org/electronic/forum/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=19

It's up to #257, but there are some skipped numbers and repeats. Here are some of my personal favorites (if you don't feel like reading the whole thread there). This post is rather long, since I cut & pasted, but I'm sure you'll find some familiar favorites here:


Ask them why they are bitter against God.

Tell them that they might as well go out and kill people if there's no God.

Insist that there is a God and show them in the Bible where it says so.

Tell them that the Universe is too complex to "Just Exist" and must have been created by a God who "Just Exists"

End a discussion with "Well, you're smarter than me, but I have my faith and know I’m right."

Tell them that you feel they're persecuting you.

Use the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics to disprove evolution.

After losing a logical argument, saying “I pity you” or "I'll pray for you".

Say, "You know, if I'm right, I go to heaven, but if I'm wrong I've lost nothing" as though you just thought it up.

Well, I refuted all your arguments and tried to save you, but I cannot waste any more time here - you are beyond saving, so I am leaving.

I don't care what you say or prove, you need faith.

That may be what the verse says, but that's not what it means.

You're not really an atheist. You aren't 100% positive God doesn't exist, so you're really “only” an agnostic. Admit it. (Of course, as a theist, I am 100% sure God exists.)

The Bible is meant to be taken literally! Except that verse you showed me.

“God works in mysterious ways”

“We're too small to comprehend God's reasoning”

“Be careful not to think of God as he 'should be'”

"Ours is not to question... you can ask Him when you get to heaven."

Smile smugly and quote Psalm 14:1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'"

Claim that atheism is a "belief" just like theism, rather than the lack of a belief.

If you truly seek God, you will find Him.

State that you must learn the original language of the authors in order to figure out what they really meant.

Say that you know God exists. It is up to the atheists to prove God does not exist.

God can't reveal himself with any real proof because if he did, then faith would not be needed.

"The signs God exists are there, you're just not looking."

"You skeptics won't even believe even if someone rises from the dead."

"Do you love your wife/husband? Prove it."

“Since you don’t believe in God, you must not have any morals.”

You need to read with the Holy Spirit (after you believe), then it will all became clear to you.

Announce after a horrible tragedy in which many people died that God "was watching over" a loved one that survived, ignoring the obvious implication that other loved ones were not worthy of His 'watch.".

Declare: without God there are no ultimate answers to anything; with God there is an ultimate answer to everything, and that is God.

Include cosmology and abiogenesis when discussing evolution (which is "only a theory")

Belief in a God is perfectly rational and logical. I know this in my heart.

When asked about how capricious God seems, shout "He makes the rules, not you! He can and will do whatever he wants to you!"

Explain away other competing religions by saying "But they never did X". X being a claim of your own religion (claim to be god, die for your sins, etc).

Unless you have faith, you'll never understand (but don't explain rationally how you get said faith).

[seawitch]

If I had a nickel for every fundie who told me I worshipped Satan..... Sometimes I want to say I do, just so they'll run away.

And I second the irritating "I'll pray for you". For maximum effect, said with big puppy dog eyes. A woman at my office insists on reminding me that she forgives me and will pray for me. Temper rising... rising... RISING...

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by seawitch
And I second the irritating "I'll pray for you".
When someone tells me that they'll pray for me, I tell them that I'll think for them. :)

[tracer]

HubZilla quoted:

"Do you love your wife/husband? Prove it."
... which, ironically, they probably swiped from Carl Sagan's Contact.

[tracer]

BlackKnight wrote:

The "I-witnessed-a-miracle" claim. Like, "I know God exists. Why, just last year my uncle had cancer and now he doesn't! The doctors said he would probably die but now he's just fine. Aren't God's miracles grand?"
Or Libertarian's variant:

"I know God exists. Why, not too long ago my grandson had cancer, and we prayed for him. Sure, he died, but now he's in heaven! Aren't God's miracles grand?"

[Ben]

Originally posted by astorian
4) A Christian who finds genuine joy in his faith is not going to dismiss what he's experienced just because Ben finds it hokey.

Where did I say I find it hokey? I just said I'm tired of their dismissing my experiences by saying that I'm just "blind."


If Ben is tired of hearing this phrase, I suggest he clam up whenever he's tempted to scoff at other people's spiritual experiences.

Where do I scoff at other people's religious experience?


Well, TOO BAD! Those are FACTS, and nobody is obliged to stop stating FACTS, just because poor baby Ben is "tired" of hearing them.

Well, that's certainly a mature way of rebutting an argument. I haven't been called a "baby" since high school.


It's ALSO a fact that "separation of church and state" is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution. If you don't wish to be reminded of this fact, stop trying to tell "fundies" otherwise.

When have I even claimed that the phrase "separation of church and state" is in the Constitution? I didn't say I disagreed with the statement, I merely said I was tired of seeing it presented as an argument. As has already been pointed out, religious zealots often use that argument to try to justify inappropriate intrusions of the church into the state.


In THIS instance, at least, THEY'RE 100% right and YOU are 100% wrong.

Feeling a little hot under the collar? I can't help but notice that your shift key is getting a lot of use.


I'm sure that Einstein would have had no use for the "fundies" who conveniently claim him for their side.

In fact, he explicitly stated such. That's the "short quote" I referred to in the OP.


But his thoughts on "God" were not nearly as simple, derisory or dismissive as Ben would have you think.

"Derisory"? "Dismissive"? All I said was that I'm tired ot fundies using the "Einstein believed in God" argument. You're rather blatantly putting words in my mouth.

but that's a far cry from simply calling him an atheist and calling the subject closed.

When did I "simply call him an atheist and call the subject closed"?

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by astorian
You're quite right, context makes a lot of difference. Unfortunately, Ben doesn't provide any context in the original post. He just makes a list of lines he's "tired" of hearing.

So rather than ask me for a clarification, you just assume the worst and put words in my mouth.


Do fundamentalists phone Ben while he's having dinner, and yell "Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution"?

No, they use it to rally the troops around political causes.

http://angelfire.com/ca2/outofthecloset/index.moresins.html

"There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore." --Pat Robertson, November 1993 during an address to the American Center for Law and Justice

When he's sitting on a park bench, minding his own business, do fundamentalists run up to Ben and scream "Just because you're blind doesn't mean we can't see"?

I'm complaining about fundies who try to convert me, or declare that prayers are always answered, and then, when I tell them I never felt the presence of God when I prayed, they tell me that I'm "blind" or that I'm "insincere." I speak for a lot of ex-Christians when I say that fundamentalists can be grossly insensitive in speaking about other people's spiritual experiences.



Obviously not. The lines Ben claims to be tired of are NEVER the first line any proselytizer springs on the person he hopes to convert. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they're under attack.

Yes, poor old Pat Robertson, just trying to defend himself against those mean old atheists, non-fundie Christians, and assorted other skeptics and rationalists.


So, I repeat: if Ben is "tired" of hearing "just because you're blind, it doesn't mean others can't see," there's a simple solution: he should refrain from denigrating the spiritual experiences of others.

Prove it. I'm getting a little tired of you putting words in my mouth.


don't make false claims about the Constitution, and the "fundies" won't have to correct you!

Kaylasdad has presented you with a simple challenge, and I second it. Give me an example of a time when I claimed that the phrase "separation of church and state" appears in the constitution.


And finally, if you're "tired" of people oversimplifying Einstein's complex beliefs, to make it appear that he was on THEIR side... well, Ben, you could set a good example for the errant "fundies" by ceasing and desisting from that practice yourself.

I think it's abundantly clear to everyone present but yourself that I've done no such thing.

It seems to me that the situation here is pretty simple. You've made a total ass of yourself by flinging insults worthy of a schoolyard bully, and by blatantly putting words in my mouth. If you're willing to apologize for that, I think we can move on to a discussion in which both of us act like adults.

-Ben

[Ben]

Originally posted by kniz
Then why Ben is your statement linked to Jomo Mojo's question concerning liberal Christians.

Why do you think I was quoting the OP, if not to point out that he had misinterpreted me?


It appears to me you are saying that what Jomo Mojo said about Liberal Christians can be refuted in a few sentences.

Ah, so you thought I was refuting the idea that liberal Christians have more of a hard time with fundies than atheists do.


In other words I took you to mean that you thought all Christians are fundies.

That's only one possible interpretation of what I said, and (as I indicate above) not even the most appropriate or obvious one.

I TAKE PARTICULAR OFFENSE TO THAT.

Well, I take particular offense to your willingness to accuse me at the drop of the hat, both here and in the "When will blacks let go of the past?" thread. You completely misunderstood what I said, and zeroed in on the worst possible misinterpretation. Instead of asking for a clarification, you decided to show contempt first and apologize later.

However if that is not what you meant I retract what I said.

If it were a simple misunderstanding, an apology would be more than enough. As is, you've graciously apologized for the pence while failing to mention the pounds.

-Ben

[vorfod]

Ben, you're being unnecessarily charitable. I've read the same post as Kniz, and how that possible interpretation of your correction of the OP came out leaves me completely mistified...

Thankfully, we don't get too many Fundies we're I live. Unfortunately, this has been recognised, and more attemps are being made by the few to generally annoy the many.

[kaylasdad99]

Personally, I think he's being unnecessarily confrontational, and I say that as one whose postings to this thread have been, without exception, refutations of what I saw as ill-thought-out attempts (first by astorian, and then by kniz) to attack Ben's original thesis and follow-up posts.

Ben, I'm not entirely sure I want to bring this up with you, and if you feel I'm overstepping myself by authority with a -like comment, I apologize in advance (;)). People have stated elsewhere that they perceive you insisting on higher standards of etiquette from others than from yourself. I've never really believed that the perception is well-founded (which may reflect wishful thinking on my part), but while you have done a commendable job of rebutting astorian's attack on your OP, you may be dancing too close to that fabled line that seperates the acceptable from the unacceptable in GD. In fact, I fear you may have trodden upon in with your assertion, in so many words, that astorian made an ass of himself [with his posts]. While I (and perhaps others) may agree with the conclusion you have drawn, I respectfully suggest that the language you have couched the conclusion in is inappropriate for this forum.

Oh, and I also appear to have inferred your intended context (in the OP) too narrowly in my posts to astorian. I limited it to exchanges in Great Debates, while you seem, from my reading of your posts of yesterday, to intend it for arguments IRL and elsewhere. I apologize for this.

Last thing: as gratifying as I find it to have my screen name invoked, and my contributions acknowledged, I really do prefer that my screen name be considered case-sensitive (kaylasdad, if you please, even at the beginning of a sentence. Use or discard the 99 at your whim).

[kaylasdad99]

if you feel I'm overstepping myself by authority

should be:

if you feel I'm overstepping my authority

Apologies to all.

[jab1]

Originally posted by ITR champion
My personal favorite:

"The big bang theory must be wrong because scientists can't explain what caused the big bang/ scientists can't explain what happened before the big bang." Check out this "discussion." (http://thebruces.stormbirds.org/forums/showthread.php?threadid=4496)

[astorian]

This will be my last post in THIS thread. I imagine I'll cross paths with Ben and my other opponents again on other threads, but Ben will get the last word here, if he wants it.

I'm a Catholic, so I have my own problems with "fundies," as Ben so charmingly (and... "maturely" calls them). I criticize them whenever I think it's called for. But I have little patience for guys like Ben, who make unfounded criticisms without the slightest sense of context, and then have the nerve to act hurt when someone points out their fallacies.

The amazing thing about Ben is, though I'd LOVE to dismiss him as a mere hypocrite, I think he's actually on the level! He REALLY thinks that I insulted him unfairly, and that his own arguments were the very model or erudition, wit and maturity!

Get over yourself, Ben. Even your staunch defender Kaylasdad sees through you on THAT score. You're easily as foul-mouthed, snotty, immature and sophomoric as anyone on these boards, including me. The only difference is, I readily admit to being a sarcastic wise guy. You actually think you're better than that!

Back to the original post. Suppose, just SUPPOSE, somebody else had started a post by stating "I'm TIRED of hearing the following lines:

'Same to you, creep!'
'I know you are, but what am I?'
'Yeah, well I'm rubber and you're glue- whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.'

Would your reaction be to sympathize with the poor poster being besieged by these lame lines? No, I suspect you'd ask, "Just what are you saying to people to prompt those retorts? You'd say "STOP INSULTING PEOPLE, and you won't ever have to hear those silly rejoinders." Because, let's face it, those are retorts, rejoinders, not opening statements from anyone. Nobody ever uses those lines unless provoked.

And what if the fellow yelled back "Stop putting words in my mouth! I never said I insulted them. I only said I'm tired of hearing those lines." Would you take him seriously? I doubt it.

Now, be logical for a second. WHEN is a Christian likely to say "Just because YOU'RE blind, it doesn't mean we can't see"? I can think of only one circumstance that would provoke such a lame retort: somebody has mocked his beliefs.

Now, does Ben strike me as the kind of guy who'd get his jollies mocking somebody else's religious beliefs? Yes, he does. Maybe he's a sweet, nice person in real life, but the guy who posts here DOES strike me as the kind of intellectual bully who'd get enjoyment out of sniping at someone else's most cherished beliefs, if those beliefs amused him (as they almost certainly would).

As for Einstein, I say that Ben and the fundies are both engaging in the same dishonest (and futile, really) game: picking isolated quotes from a brilliant man, and hoping those quotes will give your side more credibility. Ben seizes on Einstein's anti-religious lines, while fundies seize on Bartlett-type quotes like "God does not play dice with the universe." Both Ben and the fundies hope (wrongly) that some of Einstein's perceived brilliance will rub off on them, if they quote him. That's a childish game. Sir Isaac Newton,probably the most brilliant man who ever lived, was a devout believer in alchemy. What does that prove? Nothing much- only that brilliance in one field doesn't translate into special insight in other arenas.

And, again, if Ben himself acknowledges that the Constitution says NOTHING about separation of church and state, why should "fundies" care if he's tired of hearing it? THEY'RE probably tired of hearing that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land... but it is. THEY'RE probably tired of hearing the Earth is much older than the Genesis story indicates... but it is. Are YOU going to stop pointing out these facts, just because THEY'RE tired of hearing them? Then why should any fundamentalist abandon a fact that supports his cause, just because one of his enemies doesn't want to hear it any more?

Lest BEn think I have no sympathy for him, I should point out that fundamentalists don't regard Catholics like me as "real" Christians, and some of them HAVE tried to recruit me. Do I resent it? Sure, a little. But I handle it a little more simply than Ben does.

Ben, everyone agrees that you have no obligation to give ANYONE a moment of your time, whether it's a Jehovah's Witness or the Fuller Brush man. If a proselytizer knocks on your door, you have every right to growl "Not interested. Go away." At that point, the proselytizer is under orders from Jesus to go away (shaking the dust from his feet is optional). If he doesn't, Ben has my blessing to call the cops or sic the dog on him.

There! Problem solved. Don't you feel better?

[MEBuckner]

Do fundamentalists phone Ben while he's having dinner, and yell "Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution"? When he's sitting on a park bench, minding his own business, do fundamentalists run up to Ben and scream "Just because you're blind doesn't mean we can't see"? When he's sound asleep, do fundamentalists spray paint "Einstein believed in God" on his house?

Obviously not. The lines Ben claims to be tired of are NEVER the first line any proselytizer springs on the person he hopes to convert. THOSE are defensive lines, lines that Christians pull out when they sense they're under attack.
The "separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution" line, just to pick one, is NEVER a "defensive line" on the part of Theocratically-Inclined Christians. It always goes something like this:


The Theocratically-Inclined Christians make a proposal to have the Ten Commandments posted in all courthouses, or to have all children in public schools be invited to accept Jesus as their Saviour and be washed in His Blood one-by-one in a mid-day assembly in front of the entire student body, or to have blasphemy be made punishable by death by stoning.
The Atheist--or more accurately, the supporter of religious liberty, who may or may not be an Atheist--says "But we have separation of church and state in this country! It's one of our most important Constitutional principles!"
And that's when the T.I.C. responds with the "SOCAS isn't in the Constitution" line.


In fact, a lot of these things are basically ripostes, not parries. It goes something like this:

Atheist (or Catholic or liberal Protestant or Jew or Neo-Pagan or you-name-it) is basically minding his or her own business. Christian Evangelist starts off with a thrust:

"You should believe in God!"

Atheist parries "Well, I have no need of that hypothesis!"

C.E. ripostes "But Einstein believed in God!"

Note that there are usually a lot more steps than that. Most atheists really aren't all that evangelical in my experience--why show missionary zeal about not having a belief in something? "Yea, verily! There are no leprechauns!"

C.E. "What church do you go to? You should come to my church sometime, it's very Spirit-filled."
A. "Oh, well, thanks, but I'm really not very religious."
C.E. "Oh, we're not religious either. We just love the Lord! You should come and get saved!"
A. "Well, I guess I don't really feel like I'm, ah, 'lost' or whatever, heh heh. Thanks anyway."
C.E. "Oh, but you're a sinner--everyone's a sinner! You've got to accept that--the Scriptures are very clear that everyone's a sinner!" [rattles off 39 Bible verses about how everyone is a sinner]
A. "Er, well, I don't really put much stock in what the Bible says."
C.E. "But the Bible is the Word of God! You believe in God don't you?"
A. "Well, no, I don't."
C.E. "But everyone else believes in God! Are you saying that they're all wrong and you're right?"
A. "Well, yeah, I guess I am."
C.E. "Well, what, is everyone else just delusional or something? Because me and my friends at that church, we all KNOW God is real! We've felt Him!"
A. "Well, I guess maybe you have felt that, but I would have to say that's just an internal thing inside your head or something. I mean, I thought I was one with the Universe and that I was the color red and the I loved everything including rocks and trees, but then I graduated from college and had to get a job and stop doing drugs, ha ha!"
C.E. "So you think we're all crazy?!?"
A. "Well, I wouldn't say that, but I think maybe you are experiencing an illusion. Anyway, what you feel doesn't really help me any, because I haven't felt that. Not even when I was in college."
C.E. "Well, just because you're blind doesn't mean that other people can't see!"

[kaylasdad99]

(my keyboard took a crap on me last night while I was writing this, but it’s better now, and I still want to post this, so I’m going to)

astorian (if you’re still lurking), you still refuse to grant that Ben is speaking from the context of a debate, in which Ben and his opponents are voluntary participants. Ben enters these debates knowing and accepting that he is honor-bound to provide intellectually honest, supportable arguments, and he expects that all other participants are partipating just as voluntarily as he is, and are just as aware of their own obligations as good-faith debaters.

Ben also knows that bare facts are not arguments, therefore, he does not make or imply unsupportable claims for what a fact demonstrates (e.g. "radiometric dating techniques show conclusively that the planet is older than six thousand years; thus it is proven that there are no deities"). On the other hand, saying that a certain term does not appear in the text of the Constitution, in the absence of any claim that it does, looks like an implication that something relevant to the debate has been demonstrated. Whether the bare fact is genuinely wearisome is beside the point; its repeated use in the fashion described is annoying and tiresome, and publicly announcing that one is tired of it is not merely whining.

Good-faith participation in a debate entails the construction and presentation of actual arguments. It also implies the abandonment, rather than stubborn reiteration, of arguments that have been shown to be false, based on demonstrated-false assumptions, and irrelevant to the issue under discussion. It does not obligate one to withdraw from the discussion simply because one’s opponent chooses to "participate" disingenuously. The claim that one is obligated to so withdraw, can reasonably be construed as an attempt to tie one’s hands. And the claim that one has only been engaged in gratuitously attacking the deeply-held beliefs of one’s opponents, and not engaged in debating at all, can reasonably be construed as an unsupported accusation. My comments on [b]Ben[/i]’s post were not intended to undermine my position that he was right to take umbrage at your responses, or that he is right to be tired of repeatedly encountering ineffectual, flawed arguments that do nothing to advance the debate, but just waste time.

[PublicBlast]

Originally posted by Ben

Pascal's Wager, as usually stated by fundamentalist christians, goes as follows: [snip]

[/b]

Wow. I'm a fairly devout Christian, and I find this Pascal's Wager argument really annoying. Ditto for the others listed in the "250 ways to annoy an atheist." (My wife, a chemist, is especially displeased with the old "Use the 2nd law of thermodynamics to disprove evolution" bit.)

Honestly, I think a lot of fundies use false tautology because they're not willing to confront their belief with true intellect. It's possible and exciting to be a crazy intellectual Christian, but it's not easy. Loads easier to assume the conclusion of your argument and roll your eyes at "unbelievers" like me.

BTW, my least favorite fundy line: "It's Evolution or it's Jesus, Janet!" (see http://www.chick.com)

[Ben]

Originally posted by kaylasdad99
Ben, I'm not entirely sure I want to bring this up with you, and if you feel I'm overstepping myself by authority with a -like comment, I apologize in advance (;)).

Not at all. If you ask me, "playing moderator" consists in things like Lib's "I'm surprised the mods haven't warned you already," or that other fellow's abstruse (and entirely incorrect) lectures about what is or isn't against the rules. Maybe the moderators would disagree with me, but I think it's entirely appropriate to say that you don't feel that a particular statement is compatible with the atmosphere you want to see in GD.


People have stated elsewhere that they perceive you insisting on higher standards of etiquette from others than from yourself.

Who, other than pldennison and astorian?


I've never really believed that the perception is well-founded (which may reflect wishful thinking on my part),

Wishful thinking how?

BTW, do you think astorian has fairly represented your position?

"Even your staunch defender Kaylasdad sees through you on THAT score. You're easily as foul-mouthed, snotty, immature and sophomoric as anyone on these boards, including me."

So, do I really swear like a sailor? ;)


In fact, I fear you may have trodden upon in with your assertion, in so many words, that astorian made an ass of himself [with his posts]. While I (and perhaps others) may agree with the conclusion you have drawn, I respectfully suggest that the language you have couched the conclusion in is inappropriate for this forum.

I wouldn't have made the statement if I thought it transgressed the rules or were even inappropriate. It's clearly not right to say, for example, "you stupid jerk, try actually replying to my argument." I personally have less problems with "quit acting like a jerk," (although I think it's probably something one should avoid) because it is a condemnation of a person's actions, rather than of the person him or herself. It leaves open the possibility that maybe they're just having a bad day, and by asking them to quit, you are, in a sense, recognizing that they can do better. To be honest, I used "you've made an ass of yourself" as a figure of speech. Astorian's behavior is clearly out of line, she's made a ridiculous spectacle which reflects very badly on her, and I wanted to say, quite bluntly, that if she wants to retain a shred of respect she'd better wake up and realize what she's doing.

Let me stress that I don't mean this as a justification so much as an explanation. Since the phrase offends you, I'll be happy to avoid it in the future.


Oh, and I also appear to have inferred your intended context (in the OP) too narrowly in my posts to astorian. I limited it to exchanges in Great Debates, while you seem, from my reading of your posts of yesterday, to intend it for arguments IRL and elsewhere. I apologize for this.

No need to apologize, and anyway the distinction is, I think, moot. FC's use the same arguments here as they use on the 700 Club, and from the same motives.


Last thing: as gratifying as I find it to have my screen name invoked, and my contributions acknowledged, I really do prefer that my screen name be considered case-sensitive (kaylasdad, if you please, even at the beginning of a sentence. Use or discard the 99 at your whim).

My apologies; I'll remember that in the future.

-Ben

[kaylasdad99]

Ben, I have tampered with the fragment below, by inserting labels for the four questions you asked me. It just seems neater to me that way, since I'm not that comfortable with nested quotes. My responses follow the body of the fragment.

Originally posted by Ben
People have stated elsewhere that they perceive you insisting on higher standards of etiquette from others than from yourself.

{A) Who, other than pldennison and astorian?


I've never really believed that the perception is well-founded (which may reflect wishful thinking on my part),

(B) Wishful thinking how?

(C) BTW, do you think astorian has fairly represented your position?

"Even your staunch defender Kaylasdad sees through you on THAT score. You're easily as foul-mouthed, snotty, immature and sophomoric as anyone on these boards, including me."

(D) So, do I really swear like a sailor? ;)[/B]

(A) I said "people," so any number greater than one qualifies. FTR, I'm not prepared (or inclined) to go looking around for others who may have echoed or endorsed the accusation. There may be none, but I don't recall seeing an overwhelming consensus to either endorse or decry the accusation in the Pit thread where pldennison flung it at you.

(B) I have seen your work in debates before. You are conscientious, well-informed, sharp-eyed, quick-witted, and generally the kind of no-nonsense, suffer-no-fools-gladly badass my mother warned me about. I might add that I've always found your posts to be eminently readable, informative, and entertaining. My own observation is that you always play fair, but I also note that, I usually have an emotional investment in wanting to see your side of the debate prevail. This [investment] may color my observations as to whether you do. I would also note that I haven't read every debate you've posted to. Further, I have always thought of pldennison as an astute and thoughtful poster, and I've not noticed that he is in the habit of forming opinions in a vacuum. In short, I might have missed it. I've certainly seen you aggressively advocate for your position, and my objectivity may be clouded by the esteem I have for you. I'll stop gushing now. :D

(C) Absolutley not.

(D) Probably not. Actually, we were more prone to kvetching on the boats I served on. ;)

Thank you for your time. Now I'm going to print out your response to me and hang it on my refrigerator. :D

[kaylasdad99]

astorian's a SHE? :eek:

I'm not sure whether I should be embarassed about having missed it for so long or ask for a cite.

I suppose I can do both, if need be.

Cite?

[kniz]

Originally posted by Ben
That's only one possible interpretation of what I said, and (as I indicate above) not even the most appropriate or obvious one.

You still admit that it is a possible interpretation (as opposed to a misinterpretation), right?

Well, I take particular offense to your willingness to accuse me at the drop of the hat, both here and in the "When will blacks let go of the past?" thread. You completely misunderstood what I said, and zeroed in on the worst possible misinterpretation. Instead of asking for a clarification, you decided to show contempt first and apologize later.

Here is the only post of mine that I could find on the "When will blacks let go of the past?" thread.

I will elaborate for you (kniz in post subject)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ben
Perhaps when rednecks quit putting the Confederate flag on their cars, T-shirts, and state flags?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Using the term "redneck" shows that you are only selective in the derisive slurs you use against people, not that you don't use them.(kniz)

Is there some type of misunderstanding here?

If it were a simple misunderstanding, an apology would be more than enough. As is, you've graciously apologized for the pence while failing to mention the pounds.

-Ben

You should never look a gift horse in the mouth

[jab1]

You wanna hear a weird argument I once heard from a fundie? Try this exchange:

"No one really understands electricity, so how can anyone understand the God Who created electricity?"

"Electricity is a flow of electrons! They go from positive to negative. It's been verified experimentally countless times. The existence of the electron was confirmed more than 100 years ago."

"No man has ever seen an electron, so how can anyone say they exist?"

"We know they exist because of the effects they have. We can make them do what we want." (We were in a room with a TV and fluorescent lights.) "Do you think the people who made these lights and that TV and the power that makes them work were just guessing at it?"

"Since they don't always work, sure. If they knew what they were doing, they could create things that NEVER fail, like God does."

"You said no man has ever seen an electron. Have you ever seen God?"

"Seen God? No."

"Then how do you know He exists?"

"I have felt Him; I have felt His glorious love..." He got this weird, blissful look on his face like someone on drugs. I didn't say any more to him; I figured it would be pointless; he would not have listened. Besides, I was so frustrated at that point, I could barely keep from calling him a fucking idiot. Had I done that, I might have been kicked out of the homeless shelter we were in.

And then there was the guy who said, "What scientists call 'gravity,' I prefer to call the Will of God." Oh, so the "Will of God" can be measured? :rolleyes:

There are other arguments like Fred Hoyle's comparing abiogenesis to a tornado assembling a working 747 from a junkyard. How can someone as undeniably brilliant as Hoyle get it so wrong?

Oh, and how about the belief that the Bible is reliable because it never changes? :confused:

BTW: There's a new Chick tract (http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/5005/5005_01.asp) out. See a con man convert after hearing the story of Esau and Jacob! He's the sister of Janet, the former believer of evolution! And Moustache Bob returns!