Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9094 total)
7 online now:
Kleinman, nwr, PaulK, Theodoric, vimesey, xongsmith (6 members, 1 visitor)
Newest Member: d3r31nz1g3
Upcoming Birthdays: Raphael
Post Volume: Total: 901,291 Year: 12,403/6,534 Month: 1,896/1,988 Week: 17/460 Day: 17/60 Hour: 4/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Guide to Creationist Tactics
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 41 of 136 (377433)
01-16-2007 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Dr Adequate
01-16-2007 5:49 PM


More on Tactics
I think you're forgetting "proof by martyrdom", which is merely to incubate the most infuriating, dishonest, and objectionable style of posting possible, making sure to break as many completely fair rules as possible, and then declare unconditional victory in the debate as both sides of the forum take steps to reign in your unruly behavior.
I don't understand why "argument by providing evidence and defending against rebuttal" is such a rarely-employed creationist tactic. (Well, I mean I guess I do, but I'm wondering why creationists think creationists never use it.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-16-2007 5:49 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 136 (571684)
08-01-2010 11:32 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Bikerman
08-01-2010 11:18 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Atheism = lack of belief in Gods. That is not the same as saying God does not exist - he may well do, I just don't see sufficient evidence (or in fact any evidence) to support such a weird and wonderful proposition.
Consider me one atheist who soundly rejects what is basically a word-game - there's no difference between lack of belief and non-belief, by the law of the excluded middle. God has to exist or not-exist; it has to be one or the other, not both or neither. You can have varying levels of confidence in either position, all the way up to levels that are probably not logically or evidentiarily justified (Strong Atheism and Strong Theism, perhaps), or you can take absolutely no position on the matter at all.
But there's really no basis to say that "lacking a belief in the existence of God" is different than "believing that God does not exist, to a specified degree of certainty." Those really are the same thing. The only way for them to be different would be that someone who had never even heard of God really does lack a belief in God yet takes no conscious position on the existence of God at all.
Let me turn it back on you - do you believe in the Gods Jupiter and Mars? I presume not. So does that make you a believer in the non-existence of Jupiter and Mars?
Persons who do not believe in the existence of Zeus and Ares must necessarily be people who believe in the non-existence of Zeus and Ares.
Most atheists in my experience (including myself) are pretty sure there is no God but would change in light of evidence
I certainly agree (not that you asked.) But the tendency among many is to cite this in support of a supposed difference between non-belief in existence and belief in non-existence, and that's invalid. The reason that the majority of atheists nonetheless leave the possibility of being convinced is because of their position on certainty, not their position on God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 11:18 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 11:49 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 11:56 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 94 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 12:44 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 96 of 136 (571695)
08-02-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Bikerman
08-01-2010 11:49 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
The reason is : person A has never heard of God B. They take no position from ignorance rather than belief/fait
Sure, but as soon as we inquire as to their position, and explain to them exactly what we're talking about, they're by definition now someone who has heard of God B.
So the case where someone has no conception of what we're talking about is really very much a corner case. Anyone actually participating in the discussion can't be described by that case; certainly anyone who says "I don't believe in the non-existence of God; I just don't believe in the existence of God" is someone for whom, logically, that statement can't be true.
We live in societies that brand children by religion from birth.
True. Of course, one of the privileges of parenthood is the right and ability to instruct your child in whatever you think is right. As long as atheists are a minority, working to end that privilege is far more likely to be harmful to our children than helpful to theirs.
It would be very contentious for me to say my 3 year old* was a Marxist, but not to say he is a Christian.
Neither would it be contentious to say that he was white (assuming you are), or that he was British. If you ask me it's largely the result of the fact that we allow positions on matters of fact to be considered issues of personal identity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 11:49 PM Bikerman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 97 of 136 (571696)
08-02-2010 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Bolder-dash
08-01-2010 11:56 PM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
I think one either believes in something, or doesn't believe in something to a certain level of certainty; but I have to allow for a third mindset-one in which people basically just say "I have no idea."
Again I continue to be of the position that this is a result of someone's position on certainty, not their position on God.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-01-2010 11:56 PM Bolder-dash has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:07 AM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 98 of 136 (571697)
08-02-2010 12:54 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 12:44 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
I apologize if you feel that you've been misleadingly quoted. Perhaps I just didn't understand what that example was meant to get at.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 12:44 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:02 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 101 of 136 (571701)
08-02-2010 1:04 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 1:02 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
The word God was key. I asked if she believed in the Gods x and y.
I changed the names to their Greek equivalents because I didn't want to have to say "the Gods" to distinguish them from the planets. It wasn't my intent to engage in shenanigans, I promise.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:02 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:07 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 104 of 136 (571704)
08-02-2010 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 1:07 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Forgotten!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:07 AM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:14 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 106 of 136 (571707)
08-02-2010 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Bikerman
08-02-2010 1:14 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Yeah, that's probably true. I hadn't considered it, but maybe it is a function of language that we tend to not consider a middle ground between "certain" and "no idea", unless we've been trained to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:14 AM Bikerman has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 108 of 136 (571711)
08-02-2010 1:34 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:32 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
"QM mechanics teaches us that the world is random, and I know this because I can test it scientifically and it is repeatable every time. "
There's nothing illogical about it. We have statistical tests to detect randomness. They're the foundation of all scientific experimentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:32 AM Bolder-dash has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Bikerman, posted 08-02-2010 1:39 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 136 (571717)
08-02-2010 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:40 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
If QM mechanics taught us that the world is completely random, how could you repeat a test everytime to show that was so.
I told you. Because we have a statistical test for randomness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:40 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 136 (571727)
08-02-2010 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Bolder-dash
08-02-2010 1:59 AM


Re: cognitive dissonance and belief
Order has to be derived from somewhere.
There's a substantial field of mathematics, the results of which have indicated that order can frequently be derived from chaos. (And chaos from highly ordered rules.) Weird, since they're opposites, but true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Bolder-dash, posted 08-02-2010 1:59 AM Bolder-dash has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2022 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022