ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016

Fun with atheists

It's really remarkable to see how many atheists fail to understand what their "assume the other person is lying if he does not immediately present documentary evidence upon demand, which will of course be immediately dismissed for failing to meet the unexpressed demand for peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence" says about their personal integrity, or as is more precisely the case, their lack of it:
Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
The reason most atheists trust fellow atheists less than anyone else is because they recognize their own lack of integrity and morality.

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa
Any evidence for that?

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Yes. Look it up.

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa
in other words, you just made it up, right?

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
No. You guys are so predictable. You assume lies. Why? Because you are an atheist and you readily lie.

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa
Why are you slandering a huge group of your fellow human beings?

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
You are lying. Truth cannot be slander by definition. You're really not helping the case for atheist integrity here.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday
Vox: Atheists don't trust other atheists because projection.

Atheist: Show me the evidence!

Vox: No.

Atheist: You lie!

Vox: Voila....
The amusing thing is that they still absolutely believe that they are the smart ones, the "bright" ones, because godless. It's now gotten to the point that when I hear someone is an atheist, rather than an agnostic, I now assume aggressive midwittery.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. And a refusal to provide freely available, readily accessible evidence on demand is not a reliable indication that the other party is lying. It could mean that, or it could simply indicate that the other party is aware that you are an intellectually overmatched and lazy little bastard who is going to quibble in a dishonest and self-serving manner about any evidence that is provided to you, no matter how reliable the sources.

UPDATE: Someone else linked the article to which I was referring. The good faith atheist's response to incontrovertible proof that I was not, as he claimed, lying, slandering, and making things up?

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa
Read the comments to see how stupid the "research". There are more believers in jail than atheists! How come?
Seriously, at this point, how do you still manage to doubt me? He didn't even hesitate before trying to move the goal posts!

Labels:

161 Comments:

Anonymous r June 28, 2016 8:07 AM  

If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a shitlib demand "a source" to dodge the use of reason, I'd be able to fund some Dark NSF grants of my own to do some *real* science.

Blogger Christopher Yost June 28, 2016 8:18 AM  

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence.

Using dialectic to argue/prove a god generally shows a lack of faith.

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.

Anonymous Rollory June 28, 2016 8:19 AM  

If A is evidence of B: P(B|A) > P(B|A') and the absence of evidence a = A' and b = B'

P(B|A) > P(B|A')
1 - P(B'|A) > 1 - P(B'|A')
P(B'|A) < P(B'|A')
P(B'|A') < P(B'|A'')
P(b|a) > P(b|a')

Is there a false step or premise in this proof? I did not come up with it, it was pointed out to me, and I don't see flaws in the steps.

Blogger Joshua_D June 28, 2016 8:20 AM  

You can't talk with people like that. They're simply trying to "win" or control the conversation. They just ask and accuse and ask and accuse trying to find some gotcha! that they can "win" and be kings in their own mind.

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday: statement about reality

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa: question

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday: answer

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa: accusation/question

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday: answer. question/answer

Paul D ‏@Lost_in_Formosa: accusation/question

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday: statement about reality

Supreme Dark Lord ‏@voxday statement about reality

But, like Vox has always said, such conversation are not about convincing the atheist, but rather about providing evidence to people interested in truth and reason.

Blogger Phillip George June 28, 2016 8:20 AM  

Going to a website like Jim Stone, you quickly appreciate the truth is a sickening affair. Snuff movies exist. Who cares? Saddam Hussein's non existent WMDs oblique pathways destroyed Europe.
It's atheists embracing a Disney Land unreality trying to cancel pain. In Lake Wobegon every child was above average. The 6 Day Creationist perspective is simple: Intelligence doesn't cut it. Fear of he LORD is the very first baby step in superintelligence/ quantum computing/ remote viewing/ universal mind/ the Rupert Sheldrake collective unconsciousness.

Highly intelligent fools are still fools. As a modifying adjective highly intelligent doesn't change one's category. Top of a dung heap doesn't alter the smell.

Blogger Phillip George June 28, 2016 8:21 AM  

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed

0/10

Blogger JP June 28, 2016 8:22 AM  

Turn in around and ask him if he has any peer-reviewed double blind studies showing that you made it up.

Blogger Sherwood family June 28, 2016 8:23 AM  

Paul D kept stepping into the snares Vox set for him. The projection one and then Pual D's blundering into it by accusing Vox of lying was hilarious! Well played, Supreme Dark Lord, well played!

Blogger Sun Xhu June 28, 2016 8:26 AM  

This is life, every single day on the internets.

Anonymous Rollory June 28, 2016 8:29 AM  

I made an error in the 4th line, it should be:

P(B'|A') > P(B'|A'')

Blogger Christopher Yost June 28, 2016 8:37 AM  

Phillip George's education.

0/10

:)

Blogger Shimshon June 28, 2016 8:38 AM  

It's déjà vu all over again.

Blogger VD June 28, 2016 8:43 AM  

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence.

True. But lack of provided citation is not lack of evidence. Quite the contrary, in this case.

Anonymous VFM #6306 June 28, 2016 8:48 AM  

Q: Source?

A: You could have just conceded your ignorance first and avoided starting a debate you had no intention of winning.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 28, 2016 8:50 AM  

Atheists are a first world luxury. Literally if you sent this white dipshit into the usual 105% voting for the D party district to preach atheism said dipshit would bleed out in the gutter.

Atheists' world is getting smaller, soon the glorious people of color will hunt them down and kill them because they are bad ju ju or something.

The only downfall is that the rest of us white people will need a sign declaring that we are not atheists, but on the other hand we could hand the people of color a list of atheists, fun times.

Anonymous WinstonWebb June 28, 2016 8:50 AM  

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.

False.

Anonymous Napoleon 12pdr June 28, 2016 8:51 AM  

I've found that liberals don't think, they just repeat preprogrammed slogans.

If Trump is smart, he can leverage this in the Presidential debates.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 28, 2016 8:59 AM  

#17 I would go with virtue signaling of fashionable opinion. It has been fun when around the usual virtue signaling braggart to ask them if the virtue being signaled is still a thing, much confusion expressed thru the eyes. "I got to maintain the party line, but what is it?"

Blogger Phillip George June 28, 2016 8:59 AM  

mice, rats, rodents will starve to death pressing a lever to the pleasure center.

Rats couldn't give their rat's arse about the reality of starving to death.

Opium dens destroyed a generation of Chinese.

Truth is Jesus is who He said He is. If that's painful. Get over it now.

Anonymous Neuday June 28, 2016 9:02 AM  

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.

I'd suggest reading some Acquinas

Anonymous Stickwick June 28, 2016 9:05 AM  

The dishonesty of these Twitter morons surprises even me. I had a guy respond to a comment on atheism and genocide by waving his alleged history degrees at me (one of them supposedly in Russian history) and asking me if I had one. He then went on to tell me that Stalin was relatively friendly to Christianity, whereupon I noted that his knowledge didn't even rise to the level of Wikipedia and presented him with a detailed list of Stalin's anti-theist campaigns and atrocities. He immediately changed the subject, whereupon I called him out as a liar and a sneak. He is now copping to being a liar, but he's such an idiot it's not clear if he even understands this is what he's doing.

Atheists definitely take it as axiomatic that they are brilliant, because all evidence suggests otherwise.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 9:10 AM  

I am atheist.

Ok, so I tried to find a source for "most atheists don't trust other atheist". Now, I could easily find studies showing that religious people do not trust atheists; in fact, atheists are the most distrusted people in US. However, the statement was about atheist attitudes to other attitudes; and after a lot of googling, I could find no source for that statement (in fact, while googling, the first source confirming VD's stance is VD book).

However,
(1) It's easy to find that atheists generally tend to trust people more than firm believers. For example, in USA, atheists are more likely to trust other people than firm believers (41% atheists agreed with "most people can be trusted" contrasted with 32.4% of "firm believers". In Australia it was 51% of atheists willing to trust others, while 43% who are going to church weekly. On internet (i.e. non-representative) polls I found (e.g on quora) atheists stated that they either trust other atheists more, or that they do not care about whether someone is atheist or not (with only one atheists stating the contrary belief). On one study I found about "feelings toward other groups", atheists liked other atheists much more than any other religious group.

(2) It's easy to find that the more religious states in US have less trust in other people than less religious. Similar correlation was found amongst nations (correlation could be caused by the fact that generally, WEIRDer states/nations are more trustful, so we could have HDB factors here).

(3) It's easy to find that the more religious US states/nations, the higher crime rate (again, HBD factors may be in playhere).

Atheists seem to be more likely to commit adultery, drug abuse, or abusing alcohole while underage; however, there are less likely to commit murder, robbery and other serious crimes (but then, atheists are more educated, which correlates with comitting less crime; but then, they tend to be younger and more male, which correlates with more crime).

Because of that, it's reasonable to expect that when someone states "most atheists do not trust other atheists", then he should provide a source for this statement. I do not say I know it is false. It may be true. However, most of the (indirect) data I could find directs me to exactly the opposite direction, so it's reasonable to ask for source of this statement.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 9:15 AM  

And one more thing: if that would be atheist producing this statement, I may be more willing to assume he is saying the truth. However, after 20 years of discussions with religious militant people, I learned the hard way that one should not believe any statement religious people make.

Blogger tz June 28, 2016 9:17 AM  

Chesterton noted when you don't believe in God, you believe in anything.

Molyneux wonders why Atheists are socialist statists - but given the I know better than you attitude it is expected.

Blogger VD June 28, 2016 9:18 AM  

I am atheist.

I am not even a little bit surprised, given how you've been quibbling about something almost every time you comment. It's not a problem, I'm just amused how people so often run to form.

Because of that, it's reasonable to expect that when someone states "most atheists do not trust other atheists", then he should provide a source for this statement.

It is not even remotely reasonable to make a moral claim in this situation. Granted, despite the fact that your English is very good, you may not realize that is what your particular choice of words is doing.

Why should I do anything of the kind? I already know what his response will be.

Blogger Doom June 28, 2016 9:19 AM  

Bah! Don't need to be an atheist to do that. Though it seems to help. I think their self-labeling as atheist is akin to self-labeling as idiot quite often. When you paint yourself into a corner and burn all the bridges, however, there... really isn't anywhere to go. Picking on them is just that.

Blogger Phillip George June 28, 2016 9:23 AM  

After about 30 years of looking; it comes down to one sentence. Mr Rational and Snidely Whiplash might even concur.
"Abiogenesis is scientific" I don't think three words bugger intellectual sphincters quite like those three. But then I'm as biased as I can get.

Professors, PhDs, Nobel Prize winners, from Francis Crick to Carl Sagan to Paul Davies, nothing defines stupidity quite like that topic. And I'd drag any fool kicking and screaming into it just to see what they do this time.

Blogger Adam Meek June 28, 2016 9:23 AM  

Can tell szopen never read TIA, or he'd know about High Church Atheism v. Low Church Atheism.

Many, if not most, criminals are LC atheists.

Blogger B.J. June 28, 2016 9:23 AM  

Um, Vox's statement was clearly both opinion and observation, so demands for evidence are nonsensical.

Blogger John Wright June 28, 2016 9:31 AM  

A request for evidence is legitimate, and is not a sign of lack of personal integrity. Assuming the other party will always reject the evidence is, in fact, assuming the other party always acts in bad faith, which is exactly the excuse you use to escape a demand for evidence.

Blogger Gaiseric June 28, 2016 9:35 AM  

John Wright wrote:A request for evidence is legitimate, and is not a sign of lack of personal integrity. Assuming the other party will always reject the evidence is, in fact, assuming the other party always acts in bad faith, which is exactly the excuse you use to escape a demand for evidence.
It is, but it's extremely challenging to weed out who is just a legitimately curious inquirer and who is demanding evidence in bad faith. Although I'm less likely than our host to deny the benefit of the doubt, I'm also a considerably less public figure who's much less likely to attract a peanut gallery of idiots tilting at me, so I can hardly blame him.

Besides, sometimes the quest for information to educate yourself is a worthy endeavor in its own right. When I was skeptical of a lot of the conclusions of the nature vs. nurture debate settling on nature, nobody gave me a recommended reading list, but I certainly found enough evidence on my own to convince me. And honestly, because I had to look for the evidence myself, I probably trusted it more.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 9:38 AM  

I am not even a little bit surprised, given how you've been quibbling about something almost every time you comment.
I am not sure whether I should feel honoured that supreme dark lord noticed my existence or starting argument that I do not, in fact, start argument over petty minor details, since every time I argue it's over extremely important thing.

you may not realize that is what your particular choice of words is doing.
Ah yes, "should" is wrong. I had not wanted to imply anything in the sense of moral duty.

Thanks for compliments on my English. I am well aware that they are undeserved.

Blogger Erynne June 28, 2016 9:43 AM  

I remember running into this when telling atheists about near-death-experiences (NDE). They wanted to see the peer-reviewed scientific journal of evidence, and I ended up finding such a journal, but because the journal was solely about NDE they rejected the source. It's very lazy and easy to demand "the evidence" and then proceed to reject the source. I do it to them for the lulz, but it reminds me that there is no dialectic discussion that will ever take place, and that I shouldn't waste any of my time arguing on the internet.

Blogger Josh June 28, 2016 9:46 AM  

I've observed that my dog needs to poop shortly after waking up, but I cannot provide a source.

Blogger Shimshon June 28, 2016 9:46 AM  

@31 The one who calls the refuser a liar is dealing in bad faith.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 28, 2016 9:46 AM  

I suspect that some of those people who pester for "evidence" are really just trying to convince themselves of what they want to believe. So they make these move-the-goalposts demands, just so they can "win" - because that's the whole point of the discussion for them.

Blogger wrf3 June 28, 2016 9:50 AM  

Christopher Yost wrote:Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.
This is demonstrably false. Knowledge is built upon the foundation of faith. Even the atheist philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russell said so:

All knowledge, we find, must be built up upon our instinctive beliefs, and if these are rejected, nothing is left.
    The Problems of Philosophy, Chapter II

Blogger Ingot9455 June 28, 2016 9:50 AM  

My answer for a'cite' request is 'lmgtfy.com'.

Blogger VD June 28, 2016 9:51 AM  

A request for evidence is legitimate, and is not a sign of lack of personal integrity. Assuming the other party will always reject the evidence is, in fact, assuming the other party always acts in bad faith, which is exactly the excuse you use to escape a demand for evidence.

You can certainly feel free to assume good faith and answer every request for evidence you get from strangers on Twitter if you like.

I, on the other hand, will continue to assume that if I have an object in my hand, and I spread my fingers in a certain way, the object will fall to the ground.

Let reason be silent, etc etc.

Anonymous FrankNorman June 28, 2016 9:56 AM  

I've had experience debating with online Atheists where they are so desperate to "win" that they literally pretend I said the opposite of what I actually did.

Blogger VD June 28, 2016 9:58 AM  

I do not, in fact, start argument over petty minor details, since every time I argue it's over extremely important thing.

Awesome. Well said. And your English really is quite good, but I know from Italian how messy the implications of should/could/would can be.

It's not unreasonable to ask for a source, but it is unreasonable to assume that the other party has no reason for not providing it except to hide dishonesty.

Anonymous SciVo June 28, 2016 9:59 AM  

Speaking of fun, it has been brought to my attention that the Dragon Awards are open for nomination submissions until July 25th. They don't really have any categories for anything shorter than 70,000 words (written), 36 pages (illustrated), or four episodes (A/V), so that limits the possibilities somewhat.

However, with all the drek that leftists put out each year, I was wondering if anyone could think of a purportedly non-fiction book that would qualify as an "Alternate History Novel" or "Apocalyptic Novel". And really, among supposed news shows, the only question is which one most deserves to be re-categorized as a "Science Fiction or Fantasy TV Series, TV or Internet".

Any suggestions?

Blogger B.J. June 28, 2016 10:03 AM  

John Wright wrote:A request for evidence is legitimate, and is not a sign of lack of personal integrity. Assuming the other party will always reject the evidence is, in fact, assuming the other party always acts in bad faith, which is exactly the excuse you use to escape a demand for evidence.


Yes and no; Context matters. If you're in a formal debate or writing a geometry proof, yeah, you should have some citations to back up your statements. But in a casual conversation on twitter, demands for evidence are usually a debate trick to try to cast doubt on an opponent without actually engaging their arguments. It's not assuming bad faith, it's pattern recognition.

I get this a lot, if I say something like "Feminists hate men." Clearly it's an opinion, but some aspergery jackass jumps in and goes "Whoa I hope you have evidence for that!!!" These types of people will usually demand an unrealistic standard of evidence, like you need to talk to every feminist who ever lived before you are allowed to form a 'valid' opinion of them.

Blogger JP June 28, 2016 10:04 AM  

Josh wrote:I've observed that my dog needs to poop shortly after waking up, but I cannot provide a source.

Then how can you know this? Where is your doubleblind study?

Blogger Phillip George June 28, 2016 10:05 AM  

In fact watching what a fool does with abiogenesis is a sort of empiricism all of its own. Universities have become an ongoing experiment in how fools react to their environments.

eg. folding a functional protein using inorganic processes would be a multi trillion dollar business. It would mean cheap synthetic food. Abundance everywhere. Why don't they do it? It needs peer revision to exist. And peers are all MIA in making life from bare elements.

Anonymous Shnookums June 28, 2016 10:13 AM  

"because godless"

I sure do miss conjunctions.

Anonymous BGKB June 28, 2016 10:19 AM  

OT: Cuckberg changes his mind about building a wall
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/06/27/open-borders-advocate-mark-zuckerberg-erects-wall-around-exclusive-hawaiian-estate/

Anonymous Hauen Holzwanderer June 28, 2016 10:22 AM  

Nearly the entire body of AGW research, for a start.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 28, 2016 10:22 AM  

I figure when an atheist (or other sperg, though they're mostly atheists) demands evidence as his first tactic, it's because A) he thinks he's the smartest boy in all the land, and B) he has a lot of free time in between doing chores for his mom.

So he figures if he can get you to agree that all points must be backed up by research, he can out-research you, or simply outlast you and then declare victory when you go back to having a life.

Blogger Josh June 28, 2016 10:27 AM  

Then how can you know this? Where is your doubleblind study?

If my dog and I are both blind I might step in dog poop.

Blogger praetorian June 28, 2016 10:31 AM  

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.

Mmm. Can you define "opposed" for us?

Would you say that reason itself presupposes anything? If so, what? May we have conclusive evidence for that presupposition? If not, what term do you use to describe your acceptance of it?

Blogger bob k. mando June 28, 2016 10:32 AM  

21. Stickwick June 28, 2016 9:05 AM
Atheists definitely take it as axiomatic that they are brilliant, because all evidence suggests otherwise.



no, you have causality backwards.

they PROJECT it as axiomatic that they are 'brilliant'.

because most of your normies are going around saying, "Gosh, if I pretended to be brilliant when I'm not, people would make fun of me."

the sociopath has figured out that most people are unqualified to judge brilliance / lack thereof and are quite willing to go along with whatever is presented to them until blindingly obvious evidence to the contrary is presented.

this is how you get car salesmen and Hillary Clinton.

'Fake it til you make it'

Blogger Raziel Walker June 28, 2016 10:40 AM  

I should really learn not to get winded up when VD comments on atheism as I consider myself an agnostic theist. But in discussions with religious people I often find myself placed with atheists and playing the devil's advocate.

I would trust an atheist more as a religious person because I consider religion in general irrational. Belief in myth and legend does not make them true even if we want them to.
My mistake is probably that when I hear atheist, I really read agnost and think of moderates. And when I hear religious person I really read creationist homophobic and think of an extremist.

Blogger Quadko June 28, 2016 10:41 AM  

I enjoyed this article on our sense of God being hardwired, so atheists being in denial or brain damaged. Of course, take it with an appropriate skepticism.

http://www.science20.com/writer_on_the_edge/blog/scientists_discover_that_atheists_might_not_exist_and_thats_not_a_joke-139982
"scientists [claim] that “atheism is psychologically impossible because of the way humans think"

Blogger JP June 28, 2016 10:41 AM  

Josh wrote:If my dog and I are both blind I might step in dog poop.

But how can your dog be real if your eyes aren't real?

Anonymous S. Misanthrope June 28, 2016 10:43 AM  

Well, that was an incredibly easy Google search. And I'm an atheist! Not that I trust anyone when it comes to doing basic research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22059841

Blogger darrenl June 28, 2016 10:43 AM  

Typically, when an atheist asks for evidence, (usually for God), I ask them what that evidence looks like. Behind this is my assumption is that they must have given this some thought or they wouldn't be asking the question. What I get, 100% of the time, is an answer of the form of the god of the gaps. I.e. an angel appears, or a 500ft Jesus appears. It's at this point, when I inform them of this god of the gaps reasoning and a few moments of awkward silence, that they usually bring up the crusades or that Pope Benedict was a Nazi.

Anyway. Fun thing to try out to expose the lies that the typical village atheist is not very interested in evidence.

Blogger Rabbi B June 28, 2016 10:49 AM  

The amusing thing is that they still absolutely believe that they are the smart ones, the "bright" ones, because godless.

Not only amusing, but axiomatic. The fool (lit. the withered man) says in his heart there is no G-d. Claiming to be wise, they became fools because their foolish hearts were darkened.

Atheism is nothing more than a state of mental and moral degeneration, consequently, constipated thinking and lying are second nature. There is nothing new under the sun. A complete and utter farce.

G-d's claim is that all men know Him intuitively. G-d's claim is that the evidence and truth of His existence is overwhelming, but that men willfully suppress both the evidence and the truth, which is precisely why they are without excuse when they deny Him. The request for evidence is indicative of a mind darkened by sin and wickedness.

The wrath of G-d is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about G-d is plain to them, because G-d has made it plain to them.

For since the creation of the world G-d’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

The request for evidence is, at best, specious and dishonest. These same people could be standing in the very presence of G-d Almighty in all His glory and majesty and they would still demand evidence that He exists.

For although they knew G-d, they neither glorified him as G-d nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools . . ."

And Vox's observations do not miss the mark and are supported in spades by the following:

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of G-d, so G-d gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity.

They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, G-d-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. (The rotten fruits of atheism).

Although they know G-d’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. (cf. Romans 1, Psalm 14, Psalm 53)

Atheists are committed liars, lying mostly to themselves and occasionally to others when their foolishness is challenged with the light of the truth. But a day is coming when the knee of the most committed atheist will bow and his tongue confess that there is indeed a G-d Who looks down upon the children of men to see whether there is any man who, using his reason, is searching for G-d.

Reason will not find G-d when a man makes no effort to seek Him. So long as a man's reason is not completely eclipsed by his sensuality, there is still chance that he will find G-d.

Blogger Gaiseric June 28, 2016 10:59 AM  

Shimshon wrote:@31 The one who calls the refuser a liar is dealing in bad faith.
Yes, but I'm referring to BEFORE you decide that you're not going to bother pointing them in the right direction, and in fact, IF you will decide whether or not to help them out. There could be other reasons why you're not interested, or don't want to spend the time, but for most people who haven't made themselves public targets, it's probably not because you simply don't give anyone the benefit of the doubt.

Anonymous fred June 28, 2016 11:03 AM  

"If you're in a formal debate or writing a geometry proof, yeah, you should have some citations to back up your statements"

I thought the point of a geometric proof was that you didn't need citations, just correct geometrical reasoning based on the axioms. That's what Q.E.D. is for, it means roughly "as has been demonstrated".

Blogger VD June 28, 2016 11:03 AM  

Well, that was an incredibly easy Google search. And I'm an atheist! Not that I trust anyone when it comes to doing basic research.

I always find it amusing that some people STILL don't grasp that I never say anything like that without having an objective, and usually quite reputable, source first.

I appreciated the comment by one guy who said that while he dislikes me, he wouldn't even bother looking outside if I said the sky was green.

I don't make stuff like that up because it is utterly stupid to do so. People always find out, and usually quite soon.

Anonymous Smile Of The Shadow June 28, 2016 11:06 AM  

I pretty much see this from any SJW or leftist even if they don't admit they're an atheist. It's not that hard to put words in the google machine.

Blogger natschuster June 28, 2016 11:12 AM  

#52:

Raziel Walker:

The stuff scientists would have us believe is more incredible than anything you might find in religion or mythology, and atheists tak eit on faith.

Anonymous fred June 28, 2016 11:15 AM  

Well, arguing with atheists in a logical way is a dirty job but I suppose someone's got to do it. As a Christian man of faith, I've never felt logic was sufficient to demonstrate anything actually "true" about the nature of God; it'll get you on the green, but it won't sink the putt. If an atheist presented me with a truly airtight logical case proving beyond all doubt that God did not exist, I would simply praise the Almighty for creating wondrous things like a mind that can reason so acutely.

I don't require proof nor reasoning about it, but insofar as something outside faith convinces me, it's history and mysticism: history in the sense that we can point to the mighty, holy deeds done from age to age by the Church and her saints, both known and unknown. Mysticism in the sense it can be shown that all throughout the world, in every age and in every land, true mystics seem to be trying to express the same inexpressible thing, again and again and again. Christians have an advantage in that we have seen that the Almighty has spoken to and indeed personally interacted with, humankind; other cultures and civilizations can detect the divine spark within them, and struggle to understand what it means, but were not spoken to directly. And yet what they vaguely intuit is indeed the Word.

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 28, 2016 11:20 AM  

Whoever thought that mere trolling constitutes theistic "proof"?

Blogger Artemis Rand June 28, 2016 11:22 AM  

Atheists don't have a patent on intelligence.

They do have a patent on arrogance though.

Just go watch that (2) part South Park episode where the sex change pervert teacher freak (Garrison) starts fucking that prick Dawkins (or Hitchens, IDK) and it ends up destroying civilization centuries into the future.

It ends up with the message that Atheists are just as warlike as anyone else, if not more so.

(The 2nd best part was the Buck Rogers/Eric Cartmen in the 25th Century intro in part two....)

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 11:24 AM  

The thing about debating an atheist is that the atheist has to defend an impossible position; an athiest will always be handicapped because they have a burden of absolute proof whereas the Christian only has to cast a doubt on their arguments and merely point to the possibility that what they believe could be true or that what the atheist believes could not.

OpenID ghost-tiger88 June 28, 2016 11:40 AM  

That was an epic takedown. Vox put on a clinic.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 11:40 AM  

There's a point where knowledge becomes common. Common knowledge should not need a citation. For instance, if I was to state that there were many acres of orange trees in Florida, would I really need to provide a citation?

And if someone didn't believe that that there were in fact many acres if orange trees in Florida I would suggest they Google it for themselves, and if they said that I lost the argument well, what can you do?

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 11:46 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 11:48 AM  

The Christian's basic position: we believe that what the Bible says is true because we believe that what the Bible says is true, and this drives atheists crazy.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.

Blogger Grandpa Lampshade June 28, 2016 12:02 PM  

It's funny because these types think they're the first one to pull the same old tired tactic.
Statement of fact.
Demand evidence / source.
Proceed to dismiss / ignore given evidence.
I've seen this played over and over to the point I do the same thing as Vox, I refuse to play the game. I even saw one demand from someone a source on their claims of black crime. The guy provided the FBI stats. The shitlib then proceeded to dismiss them and say he didn't buy the FBI statistics. Dialectic with these people is a complete waste of time.

Blogger CM June 28, 2016 12:04 PM  

From Misanthrope's link, the reasons for distrusting atheists is not directly related to their lack of belief in God.

Raziel has this wrong.

The lack of trust in atheists is because they have no external reason to behave in a manner that is self-sacrificing or charitable to others. Does this mean atheists are incapable of such acts? No. Just that religion and faith have a distinction of overriding an individual's self-regard and encouraging self-less acts with the added benefit of some all-powerful being knowing what you are up to.

The study Misanthrope links to backs this up. The trust isn't about intellectual deficits (as Raziel indicates) or arguing in bad faith (as JA Baker insinuates), but social trust in who you expect to back you up when hell breaks loose (metaphorically speaking).

Blogger tweell June 28, 2016 12:07 PM  

A recent (1972) loaves and fishes miracle:
http://www.handsforchristministry.org/thechristmasmiracle.html

That's a decent account. This was investigated by many people afterwards, no one could prove the witnesses were lying or had brought extra food to the Juarez garbage dump. None of the group involved were well-to-do. The facts remain - the prayer group brought food for maybe 150 people, fed 300 instead, and brought back more food than they started with (dropping that off at two orphanages).

God is. Not believing in him doesn't change that.

Blogger residentMoron June 28, 2016 12:10 PM  

@70

That's not my position.

My God is a scientist. In fact, looking at what he made, he is THE scientist of all scientists.

And he doesn't say "just believe" without resort to evidence and argument.

In fact, he offers a test no alternate god or theory can offer:

"Prove me now"

I believe what God says because (A) it is self consistent, (B) it is consistent with reality, (C) it is consistent with my experience. I've done the testing.

Nobody and nothing else offers that - or can.

I'm a scientist, too. I go with the percentages.

No, I'm not a professional scientist like some here. I make no claim to such bona fides, and wouldn't even if I could. I'm a scientist in the much more mundane sense of trying to figure out what life's all about, how it works, why it works, what it is for, and in particular what *mine* is for.

Just like every other snowflake on the planet.

Blogger Jewel June 28, 2016 12:11 PM  

My eldest, self-proclaimed atheist daughter is quickly finding that hell is other atheists. This is why atheism is such a dead-end religion. Being anti-God makes one anti-life, anti-freedom, anti-creative. Anti-everything that is good, true, and beautiful.

Blogger Were-Puppy June 28, 2016 12:12 PM  

@49 Josh
If my dog and I are both blind I might step in dog poop.
---

Schrodingers poop - it's both there, and not there, until you step in it.

Blogger Noah B June 28, 2016 12:16 PM  

@71

I had a similar discussion recently while attacking the progressive canon that poverty, not biology, is the root cause of crime - except the guy just blocked me after I posted the census data. Their inclination toward critical thinking is so weak that they simply accept leftist dogma without considering the possibility of examining raw data.

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 12:22 PM  

"Swimming is always to the source, against the current, flowing with the current is for rubbish"
Z.Herbert saying (my translation)

There is more to the idea of atheists being stupid .. it is not that atheists are stupid because they are atheists - the reason is - the are sheep that follow the current.

Anonymous Eduardo June 28, 2016 12:38 PM  

Noah B

Actually, in this particular case you are dealing with a emotional person. The person simply enjoy feeling in a certain way. Yoir data you contradict that, but "that" is way too important for the person, so he/she/zeer/whatevs just decide that raw data is no good since their feelings are based on fact, they are the product of factual experience let's say.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 12:44 PM  

@79
Being a conservative, right-wing atheist living in 95% ultra-catholic country I find your assertion somewhat lacking in descriptive power.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 12:55 PM  

@56 "S. Misanthrope"
Mhm I read this paper a long ago and I have no copy saved, but from the abstract alone (it's behind the paywall) it seems to me that the paper does not support statement "atheists do not trust other atheists". The abstract states that atheists are generally distrusted by general population (in fact, I am pretty sure I already mentioned this fact in my own comment @22, stating atheists are the most distrusted people in US).

Could you please, if you be so kind, elaborate more how this paper supports the statement "most atheists do not trust other atheists"? I am not saying you are wrong, maybe I confused this paper with some other, but - again - it seems to me that this paper supports "religious people distrust the atheists the most", not "atheists do not trust other atheists"

Anonymous Eduardo June 28, 2016 12:55 PM  

He means that, the most obvious proposition would be atheism. I think that is what he means. Or maybe atheism is easier to choose just like it is easier to swin down the current.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 12:56 PM  

@56 misanthrope
never mind, I found the copy. Reading it now. I will comment in ten minutes

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 1:00 PM  

@81
But yours is exactly the case - in ultra-catholic country you are going to be the one swimming and they are flowing .. the idea is general = does not regard atheism as source os stupidity ;)

And in my example - I do mean embedded in US/west culture, internet society - which is generally atheistic.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 1:03 PM  

@56
Read it. No, the paper does not confirm "atheists do not trust atheists". Not even close. In fact, it stresses that the higher religious belief, the higher distrust in atheists. Your confusion may stem from the study "1" when 3% of participants were atheists - however note that when authors later discuss "nones", those are not atheists, but simply "religiously unafilliated" who are not atheists (generally, the fact that large part of that groups agrees with "God is important in my life" should b=made that clear).

I might miss something, but IMO you are wrong.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 1:04 PM  

Phillip George wrote:"Abiogenesis is scientific"

Not for any value of "scientific" that has any value.

How about "Abiogenesis is sciency"?

Christopher Yost wrote:Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence.
Using dialectic to argue/prove a god generally shows a lack of faith.
Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.

True
Absurd
Absurdly false

Lack of evidence is still lack of evidence.
There is not lack of evidence. Merely a lack of willingness to examine said evidence on the part of Atheists. Experience shows that Atheists are entirely unwilling to rationally examine such evidence. Dr. Alexis Carrel refused to accept the miraculous cure of Marie Bailly despite witnessing it with his own eyes.
Atheists are usually unwilling even to delineate ahead of time what evidence they are willing to accept. Look at Spacebunny's twitter timeline for examples.


Using dialectic to argue/prove a god generally shows a lack of faith.
Faith and reason are separate categories. One might as well say "Using dialectic to argue about science shows a lack of science". It's absurd on it's face.

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.
And how do you know that?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 1:08 PM  

szopen wrote:in 95% ultra-catholic country

Sorry, no such thing. Hell Vatican City is not 95% ultra-Catholic. Maybe 95% nominally Catholic.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 1:22 PM  

@88 Snidely Whiplash
Ok, let me rephrase - children in my school are going to "Rekolekcje" and got official three days off from the school and are going with their teachers there.

Though you are right - I browsed CBOS reports and it seems that my data was outdated. It's 40% going every sunday to church and over 90% declaring themselves as Catholics.

Anonymous Bowman June 28, 2016 1:24 PM  

@szopen

Sources/studies don't matter when you have reason.

Every human has a set of value.

You either have a traditional religion, statism or NAPism (or a combination of religion & NAPism).

If you say you have neither, you are either crazy, or more probably you are a non-self-aware statist.

When you are crazy / statist, you know you are a psychopath and so you recognize the quality in your kind.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 1:26 PM  

@90
I have no idea what you are talking about. Of course I have set of values. Atheist is someone not believing in God, not someone who has no values/no morality or whatever.

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 1:29 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Joshua_D June 28, 2016 1:30 PM  

szopen wrote:@88 Snidely Whiplash

Ok, let me rephrase - children in my school are going to "Rekolekcje" and got official three days off from the school and are going with their teachers there.

Though you are right - I browsed CBOS reports and it seems that my data was outdated. It's 40% going every sunday to church and over 90% declaring themselves as Catholics.


See, the question is, "Why would you claim to live in a "95% ultra-catholic country" to start with?"

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 1:35 PM  

@93 Joshua_D
Because that's what I hear all the day. Politicians stating "we are Catholic country" (with sometimes claming 99%). When you hear all the day I guess it just becomes undisputed truth - and it appeared to me be relevant when I read sentence "they are sheeps which follow the current" where "they" I interpret as "atheists", which generally does not seem to fit my experiences.

It was quite a surprise to me to read that the number of practising catholics (every-sunday-in-church kind) is just 40%. In fact, digging into the fact right now, one atheist blog just found the number is maybe even lower because of the way catholic church counts the faithful.

Blogger Caladan June 28, 2016 1:37 PM  

@73

'The Christian's basic position: we believe that what the Bible says is true because we believe that what the Bible says is true, and this drives atheists crazy.'


That's circular logic

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 1:38 PM  

@94
"Because that's what I hear all the day"

The reason why you hear is that Polish main stream media is generally left anti-religion SJW and IMO you allow to get them to your head.

Blogger Caladan June 28, 2016 1:40 PM  

@71, not @73

We believe that what the Koran says is true because we believe that what the Koran says is true.

See how foolish you sound?

I like a good discussion about theology as much as the next man, but your argument is simply bad.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 1:51 PM  

@96 wasu
... You mean, left-wing SJW-infested mainstream media in Poland infested my head with idea that Poland is 95% Catholic country? I must say, I cannot quite understand why they would want to do it, but their plan must be sheer genius.

Blogger skiballa June 28, 2016 2:10 PM  

@szopen

Let's recap-

Atheists aren't sheep, the 95% that are strict Catholics are. Then, as it turns out, it's 40%, and not "strict", but "practicing Catholics". It is genius, they are using confirmation bias to convince people they're not sheep, like those simple "strict Catholic"s that make up 95% of the population.

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 2:22 PM  

@skiballa

You got one point exactly .. one more is - they need a good target what is worth to make cultural war - so they make it look like diabolic and all-powerful to booster fighting frenzy of their troops.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 2:24 PM  

@Caladan,

"That's circular logic"

Correction: It's perfect circular logic, but that's the point.

Blogger skiballa June 28, 2016 2:27 PM  

@wasu

I was just spitballing, but yes, that fits too.

Blogger John Wright June 28, 2016 2:34 PM  

@101

No, please do not embarrass the Christians by pretending this is an argument in our favor.

A circular argument is a formal logical error, because the conclusion rests on a premise that is the same as the conclusion. This makes the conclusion not an argument at all, but merely a gratuitous statement. In logic, a gratuitous statement can be gratuitously denied.

The correct response is that we believe the Bible because the one, true, apostolic and catholic Church says the Bible is true; and we believe the one, true, apostolic and catholic Church because the events of history, the signs and wonders produced by God Almighty in every age of man, have given abundant proofs that the apostles and their successors speak correctly on His behalf and as His emissaries. In support of which the abundant wisdom and common sense, holiness and sanity embraces in a Bible-based worldview contrasts so sharply with the filth, madness, insanity, perversion, and disgusting immorality and despair promoted by other worldviews strengthen the belief that the Bible is truthful. Those things it speak of which can be confirmed are confirmed, and this gives us confidence that those we cannot confirm are also trustworthy.

This argument may be weak or strong, but at least it is an argument, and not merely a gratuitous statement or a glaring lapse of logic.

Atheists are not driven mad by circular argument, merely unconvinced.

To give a man nonsense when he asks for an argument is a violation of St. Paul's command that we stand ready to give a account for the faith that is within us.

Anonymous BGKB June 28, 2016 2:35 PM  

A recent (1972) loaves and fishes miracle:

http://www.naturalnews.com/054476_American_Red_Cross_Haiti_earthquake_donations_fraud.html

American Red Cross exposed as massive, incompetent fraud: built just six homes after collecting half a billion dollars in Haiti earthquake donations

Here I thought the Crisis Caravan book was a downer on charities

Blogger wasu June 28, 2016 2:41 PM  

@skiballa
Strategically thinking there is a plenty of reasons for them to exaggerate - for example it you convince middle-ground population center, that Catholic Church is omnipotent - there is a ground for request to politically limit its influence.

On the other hand - I can confirm that Catholic Church is very important force that controls about 15% of voters and influences up to 35% - that is a political force to recon ..

On the other hand - it is more and more visible that it is infested with left SJW vermin .. just today we got an article about priest saying: 'faithful people who do not want to welcome immigrants are not worthy of their faith'

Blogger wrf3 June 28, 2016 2:41 PM  

John Wright wrote:@101
No, please do not embarrass the Christians by pretending this is an argument in our favor.

Amen.
... and we believe the one, true, apostolic and catholic Church because the events of history, the signs and wonders produced by God Almighty in every age of man...
In particular, first and foremost, the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead.

And, in case any of you atheists are interested, John is Roman Catholic and I'm Reform Protestant. We may be miles apart on some things (like scientists and their various interpretations of quantum mechanics), or politicians (with their disagreements on the true meaning of the 2nd Amendment) -- but we agree on this.

Blogger Roy Lofquist June 28, 2016 3:00 PM  

"The weight of evidence for an extraordinary claim must be proportioned to its strangeness.", Pierre-Simon Laplace.

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", Carl Sagan.

Since more than 90% of human beings alive, or who ever lived, believe in supernatural beings then any claim to the contrary must begin with an extraordinary proof or they should be summarily dismissed.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 3:04 PM  

@Caladan,

"See how foolish you sound?"

Hence the 1st Corinthians reference.

However, it's not an argument. It's a basic position. I'm trying to illustrate how futile it is for atheists to debate Christians who are truly grounded in their faith.

The Christian is not concerned with how their faith is percieved by others. In fact an atheist is being decieved when they debate a Christian because the Christian isn't really debating but evangelizing instead; they are only pretending to debate in order to plant some seeds. A Kent Hovind debate would be a good example of what I mean.

As for comparitive religion, well I'm not a Muslim, so I can't really say why Muslims believe what they believe.

Perhaps their basic position is similar, but that similarity in my opinion does nothing to invalidate either.

To argue the merits of one against the other you'd have to go beyond their basic positions.

In that case there are countless subjects up for debate, such as the character of Jesus vs Muhammed, the history of the current forms of the Bible and the Koran and their reliability. But in my opinion all of these debates would ultimatey end in stale mates anyway, so what's the point?

I will say this, as Christians we believe that you can lead a horse to water but you can't force them to be baptised. The Bible commands us to preach the Gospel to evagelize, it's not up to us to convince people of the truth of the Gospel.

That is a supernatural phenomenon when a person, after hearing the Gospel, is led by the holy spirit and is convicted of their sins and has a true calling to repentance. This could happen immediately after hearing the Gospel, or it could happen many years down the road, but when it happens a person is faced with a choice. The most important choice of their lives, and their decision will determine their eternal destiny.

Blogger S. Misanthrope June 28, 2016 3:20 PM  

@84 szopen I'm not defending the conclusion reached by the studies. I'm skeptical of the methodology, to say the least. I'm just demonstrating how easy it was to find them and therefore how ridiculous it is to throw around accusations of lying.

From the abstract "In subsequent studies, distrust of atheists generalized even to participants from more liberal, secular populations." So they found that people who don't identify as religious still distrust atheists more than they distrust certain religious groups.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 3:25 PM  

@John Wright,

Forgive me, but I'm not Catholic, I can't give the same testimony as you.

I did not mean to embarrass Christians.

Allow me to elaborate and prove to you why Christians use a perfect circular logic.

As Christians we believe that the Bible is the perfect, sufficient, and authoritative word of God. Well why do we believe this? Because that's what the Bible states. And we use passages from the Bible to argue that position.

As for the apostle Paul's command for us to give a reason for our faith, well we each have our personal testimonies of how we got saved, but atheists will trample those pearls under their feet. But beyond our personal testemonials we have God's word. We use God's word to give an account of God's word. Both Paul and Jesus used scripture references when preaching and giving an account of their faith.

Anyway, no disrespect to a fellow Christian. And again I apologize if I embarrassed anyone. I was just trying to narrow down the basic position of beleivers.

It is good to study history and to be able to give an answer to objections and arguments from atheists. I don't dispute that. But I think it would be dishonest to say that Christians base their faith on archeological evidence, because that is shaky ground.

Blogger wrf3 June 28, 2016 3:35 PM  

J A Baker wrote:I was just trying to narrow down the basic position of beleivers.
Except that isn't the basic position of believers in general. It's the basic position of a subset of Christians who happen to believe in "Solo Scriptura" (and, no, that's not a typo). "Sola" Scriptura is a point of disagreement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. "Solo" Scriptura is the insupportable idea that Scripture is self-contained and is the only source of truth for Christians.

"The Bible is true because it says it's true" is no different that "I'm Napoleon, because I say I'm Napoleon."
It is good to study history and to be able to give an answer to objections and arguments from atheists. I don't dispute that. But I think it would be dishonest to say that Christians base their faith on archeological evidence, because that is shaky ground.
How else do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? All you have is the oral and written accounts of the witnesses.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 3:43 PM  

@99
I have not claimed Catholics are sheeps, I have claimed atheists are NOT sheeps flowing with the current. In fact, most of my friends (and in fact my wife and my children) ARE catholics, though most of them is not very observant.

@109 S. Misanthrope

You have not understand me, which at this point I am willing to attribute to my poor command of English.

The study does NOT show the statement "most atheists distrust other atheists more than other people", therefore you cannot say " I'm just demonstrating how easy it was to find them ", because you have NOT actually find a study demonstrating that the statement is true.

In fact, "the liberal and more secular" are not atheist. From the paper, in study 1 you can see that they have 3% atheists (from 351 people, so it was probably 9-10 atheists - actually it's funny thing, since in total 49 stated no belief in God - my definition of atheists, though they seem to describe themselves as agnostics in the study). In study 1 they tested ALL and found (page 5):

ratings of the “importance of God in your life” predicted both atheist distrust and atheist disgust .

Later they tested "nones" but those are NOT atheists; rather, as described in page 6, those are people who are not really religious, non-affiliated with any religion, and mostly rarely visit any church (less than one in a year, study says) - and this category is listed as separate from atheists and agnostics in the study description. In this group, atheist distrust
was significantly positively associated with the degree to which these participants rated God as important in their lives


The more secular and liberal group are also not atheists. Those were university undergraduates from British COlumbia "the least religious regions in north america". While probably less religious than general population, study nowhere states how many of them are actually atheists or agnostics. In all those studies, again the finding was that the more religious were people, the more they distrust atheists.

In other words, and let me state that in bold:

You have NOT found a study to confirm a statement "most atheists trust fellow atheists less than anyone else". You have merely found a study which confirm a statement "atheists are not trusted by religious people, the less trusted the more religious the people are" (which I already have stated in my comment @22)

At this point you should either point me to the exact place in the study which, in your opinion, confirms the statement or admit you were wrong.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 3:47 PM  

@wrf3,

"How else do you know that Jesus rose from the dead? All you have is oral and written accounts of the witnesses."

Good, I'm glad you asked this, because it helps me explain my position.

Okay, let's say that through acheology we can prove that there was man named Jesus and that he was crucified and rose from the dead. I don't really know how acheology or any scientific disalpine could ever prove any of that conclusively without a doubt, but for arguments sake let's say it was proven.

How do we know that Jesus' blood was shed for our sins? How do we know that He ascended to Heaven? How do we know that He walked on water? How do we know that He was tempted by Satan in the desert? How do we know that there is a hell? How do we know that we will have salvation and eternal life? How do we know that there is a Heaven and angels and so on? None of those things can be proven empirically. All we have as proof of these are.... wait for it... God's word.

Jesus loves me this I know.

How do I know?

For the Bible tells me so.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 3:53 PM  

@wrf3

For the record, I'm neither Catholic or Protestant; I'm Baptist.

Anonymous Athor Pel June 28, 2016 3:54 PM  

"53. Blogger Raziel Walker June 28, 2016 10:40 AM
...
And when I hear religious person I really read creationist homophobic and think of an extremist."


So you're a homo then.

Anonymous andon June 28, 2016 4:07 PM  

@ #116 - no he's the extremist he claims religious people are

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 4:23 PM  

Yes, he's an extremist. What's wrong with that?

But, yes, he's a homo.
Nobody instantly conflates "religious" with "homophobic" except homos.

Blogger wrf3 June 28, 2016 4:27 PM  

J A Baker wrote:For the record, I'm neither Catholic or Protestant; I'm Baptist.
Baptists are Protestants who are ignorant of church history.

I used to be a Baptist, too. But I got better. ;-)

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 4:32 PM  

S. Misanthrope,

Here is one more thing, to specify more and argue more clearly why the study can't be used to support the claim:

I found that in BC there are 26% people who said they do not believe in higher power, which would mean they are atheists. Also, the study says that "despite relative frequency in our sample" atheists are still least trusted in comparison to Jews/feminists/homosexuals.

However nowhere in the study I can find a confirmation that atheists trust less atheists than other people, they found that belief in God decreased the trust in atheists and they stress that fact several times. In fact, looking at the figures and the data from appendix, it is possible that the effect was driven solely by distrust of non-atheists. I am not saying the study authors had not found "atheists do not trust atheists", but if they did, they had not written anything which would indicate that in the study description.


Also, when you found decription of the tests given in studies to students, you would, I hope, easily find why the statement "atheists are trusted less than rapists" are actually sensationalised and is not supported by this study (and that even ignoring the really HUUUUGE sample sizes).


"Richard is 31 years old. On his way to work one day, he accidentally backed his car into a parked van. Because pedestrians were watching, he got out of his car. He pretended to write down his insurance information. He then tucked the blank note into the van’s window before getting back into his car and driving away.
Later the same day, Richard found a wallet on the sidewalk. Nobody was looking, so he took all of the money out of the wallet. He then threw the wallet in a trash can."

Next, participants chose whether they thought it more probable that Richard was either (a) a teacher or (b) a teacher and XXXX.

We manipulated XXXX between subjects. XXXX was either “a
Christian” (n 26), “a Muslim” (n 26), “a rapist” (n 26), or “an atheist (someone who does not believe in God)” (n 27). The only difference in descriptions across targets was that the Muslim target was called “a man” rather than “Richard.”


Finally:

Stupid me: demographic data is at the end of the study in appendix : 9% atheists, 11% agnostics of all students, and 19% in sampled tested rated their belief in GOd as "1" - the lowest possible grade. As you can see in the figures, at most 50% of participants were guilty of fallacy of grading "Richard was a teacher and atheist" as more probable than "Richard was a teacher" - 81% of participants were not atheists or agnostics.

Blogger wrf3 June 28, 2016 4:38 PM  

J A Baker wrote:How do we know that ... For the Bible tells me so.
I understand that. But to claim that the Bible is true because the Bible says it's true, or to claim that the Bible is true because it contains "God's word" (which is another way of saying "it's true") equivocates on the meaning of "knowledge". Go back to my post @37. We know things because we accept them as a priori true, or we except them as true because there is a chain of reasoning that leads back to a set of a priori truths.

Which claim are you making?

Whether or not the Bible is actually true is a very complicated subject.

Blogger szopen June 28, 2016 4:39 PM  

Argh, I wish there was an option to edit my own posts. 9% atheists, 11% agnostics of all students in the demographics from which they picked a sample (ie 80 non-atheists), but 19% of the sample (ie 81% of the actually tested sample graded belief in God as higher that the lowest possible, indicating at least some level of belief in God)

Uff, sorry for the spam. If writing this kind of long posts is unacceptable per blog rules, let me know, I will adjust my future behaviour accordingly.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 4:40 PM  

szopen wrote:As you can see in the figures, at most 50% of participants were guilty of fallacy of grading "Richard was a teacher and atheist" as more probable than "Richard was a teacher"

This is not a fallacy. It is not of necessity true, but people are expressing their experience and their expectations. In their experience, these actions are more typical of Atheists than the other examples given.

The most accurate way to assess the character of a person you do not know is to go with the stereotype. far more predictive of behavior than any of the typical assessment tools, including personality tests, education, socio-economic status, etc.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 4:42 PM  

szopen wrote:Uff, sorry for the spam. If writing this kind of long posts is unacceptable per blog rules, let me know, I will adjust my future behaviour accordingly.

Not against the rules (which are linked above the comment box) but don't expect everyone to read them. Walls of text can easily annoy. Just don't be monomaniacal.

Blogger Blastman June 28, 2016 4:54 PM  

Christopher Yost

Knowledge and faith are diametrically opposed.


You misunderstand what faith is for a Christian. Faith in a true revealed religion is knowledge. In fact, it is considered the most certain knowledge. If God revealed something, then it is true, absolutely -- and there could be no equivocation about it. True religion is the ultimate source of knowledge.

Faith is not blind belief and it is not belief in something without evidence -- it is belief in something based on the evidence of authority and witness and testimony. It's a different type of evidence than direct empirical scientific evidence, but it is evidence and people believe things based on authority all the time.

In a court of law, testimonial evidence is the primary source of evidence given, and in many cases expert witnesses are called to give testimonial evidence in various areas that are under dispute (i.e. even the science of DNA testing). Just about everything you think you know to be true is based on this type of evidence -- a belief system based on the evidence of authority.

It's like what one takes for true in science based on authority.

If one wants to learn physics in college, one will be using a college physics textbook. Should a student believe what is written in the textbook is true? Why? One can't go out and actually perform all the experiments and collect all the evidence to try and directly prove these things are true. So why would one accept what's written in the textbook is a true picture of reality? Because reason and evidence dictate that the textbook was written by authoritative people in the field who provide witness and testimony that what is written in the book has been adequately demonstrated. The science is being accepted based on faith -- but that faith in the teachings of the physics at textbook is supported by reason and evidence, it's not a blind faith with no evidence.

Rationality is not left at the door of a Christian church when people believe things based on faith (some authority) any more than a physics student leaves his rationality at the door of the physics classroom when he accepts the teachings a physics textbook or physics professor. Reason assesses and weighs the evidence and authority and decides whether the teachings in both cases are credible.

If God revealed something to you and the only evidence you had for whether that fact was true or not was the fact that God stated it, revealed it -- would you accept it as true? Of course -- this is a reasonable and rational position to take. If 10 physicists and God were sitting in front of you and the physicists stated X was true, but God said no, that is incorrect, Y is true. Who would you believe? Rationally, reason dictates one sides with God on the issue and the 10 physicists are wrong. Who would know every single detail about the universe but God who created it. In Christianity, we believe the articles of faith (teachings) revealed are true because of the authority of the one who is revealing it.

Anonymous Moonbear June 28, 2016 5:10 PM  

Personally I don't like atheists very much, it strikes me as unintelligent and unwise to call "religious" people who believe in god to be stupid or ignorant when claiming to know god does not exist is equally religious and ignorant.

I may be agnostic but I do appreciate the role Christianity plays in the Western world, if there is a god or not does not seem to make a difference;
People are going to be religious anyway, they might as well project it on a force untouched by reality instead of becoming religious in other ways that may cause serious harm to civilization. IE: Feminazis, SJW's and other such nonsense.

Blogger S. Misanthrope June 28, 2016 5:22 PM  

@112 szopen Am I interpreting this right, that about 15% of a group that rates atheists as less trustworthy are people whom you would consider atheists? It's certainly possible that the greater distrust of atheists is driven entirely by the other 85% in that group, so yeah, you won't hear me arguing that this proves atheists distrust other atheists.

What you do hear me arguing is that the first Google hit for "atheists distrust atheists" provides *some* evidence. Maybe there's even more out there. I don't know, I didn't keep looking beyond the first hit because my goal was to see how difficult the search was, not what the truth is regarding atheist-atheist trust. The existence of any amount of evidence, whether it's good evidence or not, makes it unlikely that Vox "made it up" as Paul D accuses. There's a difference between saying a false thing and telling a lie.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 5:26 PM  

@wrf3,

"We know things because we accept them as a priori true, or we except them as true because there is a chain of reasoning that leads back to a set of a priori truths."

Of the two options I would ultimately have to favor the first. The second option isn't really an option, Regarding the truth of the Bible, I don't really know of any chain of reasoning that would lead back to the a priori truths with out a few missing links, thus ultimately the first position has to be the default by default.

But like I said it's good to be educated and to know your history.

I would disagree with you about the Baptists and church history, but I really don't want to go into it. All I will say is that there were practicing Christian communities outside of the Catholic Church well before the reformation. Many modern day Baptists identify with these.

Blogger guest June 28, 2016 5:50 PM  

The atheist "Center for Inquiry" has a list of policies for behavior that amaze me. How can anyone be older than six and not know that they aren't supposed to pinch people?

http://www.centerforinquiry.net/pages/policy_on_harassment_at_conferences

It appears that atheists don't trust each other for a whole lot of other things besides telling the truth.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 5:55 PM  

I heard somewhere that Richard Dawkins has a 2nd home that he often rents out, and he will only rent it out to Christians.

Blogger guest June 28, 2016 5:55 PM  

@J A Baker:

"As Christians we believe that the Bible is the perfect, sufficient, and authoritative word of God. Well why do we believe this? Because that's what the Bible states. And we use passages from the Bible to argue that position. "

At work I am required to follow the protocols as listed. In fact, I sign off on every protocol to verify that I have read them and understand them. I am expected to follow these protocols to the letter or risk termination.

How do I know this to be true?

The protocols state as much.

Blogger guest June 28, 2016 5:57 PM  

@J A Baker:

"As Christians we believe that the Bible is the perfect, sufficient, and authoritative word of God. Well why do we believe this? Because that's what the Bible states. And we use passages from the Bible to argue that position. "

At work I am required to follow the protocols as listed. In fact, I sign off on every protocol to verify that I have read them and understand them. I am expected to follow these protocols to the letter or risk termination.

How do I know this to be true?

The protocols state as much.

Blogger Kristophr June 28, 2016 6:12 PM  

I am an atheist. I do not assume believers are stupid, misguided, or unethical. I don't have proof of the existence of God, any more than believers have physical proof of the supernatural.

I have better things to do with my life than attack or sue believers.

I guess I must also be a unicorn, considering how obnoxious most atheists behave.

Blogger Kristophr June 28, 2016 6:13 PM  

Sorry: " I don't have proof of the non-existence of God ..."

Was someone joggling my elbow there?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 28, 2016 6:15 PM  

J A Baker wrote:there were practicing Christian communities outside of the Catholic Church well before the reformation. Many modern day Baptists identify with these.

Many men identify as women as well. The descendants of the Anabaptists are the Amish and the Mennonites.

Blogger Raziel Walker June 28, 2016 6:16 PM  

No religious + extremist equals homophobic in my mind.
Majority of christians are not homophobic.
Majority of muslims are homophobic.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 6:46 PM  

@Snide Whiplash,

Faith in God, and salvation are not inherited, it's not something that you can be born into.

What mean when I said that many modern baptists identify with these sects was that they subscribe to similar practices, beleifs and doctrines, anabaptists included, but also the donatists as well as other ancient sects, who believed in a profession of faith and proof of repentance before baptism, small local independent churches among other things.

But, more importantly, these Baptists do not identify as protestants. They are not protesting, they believe that they have nothing to do with the Catholic Church, so they are not in a position to protest.

They denounce the Catholic Church and it's teachings and no reformation would bring them into harmony with the Catholic Church unlike the traditional definition of a protestant.

If Martin Luther's 99 thesis had been rectified perhaps there would not a protestant Church today, but there would still be baptists. They refer to them selves as a remnant, and in fact view Luther as a murderer and hypocryte.

Blogger rcocean June 28, 2016 8:00 PM  

Demands for proof on the internet are almost always intellectually dishonest. The person is usually too stupid/lazy to engage in a good counter-argument.

Obviously, if you say some outrageous statement like "51% of all Americans support cannibalism" then demanding proof would be acceptable. However, that is rarely the case.

Blogger rcocean June 28, 2016 8:02 PM  

One reason I rarely debate History will others on the internet is they keep demanding "proof" about something they SHOULD know. However, most people get their History from dim-witted Professors and the History channel. Trying to correct their ignorance is too boring.

Blogger J A Baker June 28, 2016 8:12 PM  

The History Channel, now there's some Orwelian Double Speak if in action right there.

Anonymous Ken June 28, 2016 9:32 PM  

I was primed to hate this guy, then I checked his tweets and saw that he's

1. FOR the Brexit/against the EU.
2. Recognizes the Scots as a bunch of welfare scroungers.
3. Recognizes virtue signalling, even using the term.
4. Recognizes that calls of "racist" are used by Globalists to avoid debate.
5. Hates socialism.
6. Recognizes the global warming scam.
7. Says that Islam "can't survive the bright light of truth".

Stopping there. The guy is an ally.

Personally, I was a lifelong agnostic until a few short years ago. Some of us need cold hard concrete proof. Some of us, myself included, need to quite literally See the Light before we understand and accept certain Truths.

I had to be witness to both sides. I still call myself an agnostic with the caveat that I know that SOME things are most definitely true. The Devil, for instance, that little crooked fucker is real. Not sure still about that Jesus fellow. Haven't yet met him.

Give him time and pray for the atheist to gain humility.

Anonymous VFM 8859 June 28, 2016 11:51 PM  

If your dog poops on the sidewalk, you'll have concrete evidence.

Blogger szopen June 29, 2016 4:24 AM  

@122 Snidely Whiplash
Of course it is a fallacy. (A and B) cannot be MORE probable than (A) alone.

@126 S. Misanthrope
Am I interpreting this right, that about 15% of a group that rates atheists as less trustworthy are people whom you would consider atheists? It's certainly possible that the greater distrust of atheists is driven entirely by the other 85% in that group, so yeah, you won't hear me arguing that this proves atheists distrust other atheists.

Exactly. Now, it does not mean the atheists do not trust atheists, but we don't know that, because paper says nothing about that.

But, since atheists are only 15 to 20% of all samples at most, and authors say there is a correlation between "distrust of atheist" and "faith in God", AND judging from figures, e.g. "conjunction fallacies" are committed by 50% of the sample (but why they put error bars there, while writing "ratio of people committing the fallacy"? I have an impression that I am interpreting this figure wrong), it is very unlikely that "most of atheists distrust other atheists more than other people" (especially when looking at the other data I found - about general attitude, not trust - where more than 82% atheists rated other atheists highly, highest from all other groups).

What you do hear me arguing is that the first Google hit for "atheists distrust atheists" provides *some* evidence.
Except, this first hit does NOT provide any evidence, as I argued above (because it is completely silent on the question).

Trust me, I spent a lot of time searching and I had not found anything.

I didn't keep looking beyond the first hit because my goal was to see how difficult the search was, not what the truth is regarding atheist-atheist trust.
BUt, you see - the first hit was not relevant to the question at all. I am not saying the evidence is not there. However, based on google searches I did, it's not easy to find it.

Blogger szopen June 29, 2016 4:38 AM  

@128
IMO this is a result of SJW infestation. You can google a lot of atheists complaining about that (just google elevatorgate). It's the same as with new rules in Open source conferences, where SJWs in many cases succeeded in imposing their "Code of Conduct". It does not mean programmers are arseholes - it means SJWs are arseholes.

Most atheists do not go to any conferences anyway. IN particular, I never felt any need to be a part of any "atheist community", never went to any conference and, as far as I remember, never even participated for any longer time period in any atheist online board.

@132 Kristophr
You are not an unicorn. I was quite militant 20 years ago, but right now I don't care. It's just the jerks making noise are always the most visible part of any community.

Blogger James Dixon June 29, 2016 8:35 AM  

> Of course it is a fallacy. (A and B) cannot be MORE probable than (A) alone.

It can if B potentiates A.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 29, 2016 9:51 AM  

szopen wrote:Of course it is a fallacy. (A and B) cannot be MORE probable than (A) alone.

It's not a syllogism. I will guaran-damn-tee every one of those students had had to deal with an atheist teacher before. They were registering their own experience.

Blogger szopen June 29, 2016 11:38 AM  

Hmm, I just read the "UPDATE" part of the post.

VD:
The paper you are refering to does NOT say that "most atheists trust fellow atheists less than anyone else". I discussed it above in detail @112, @119, @142.

Basically, the studies linked show that atheists are disliked and distrust by religious people; the more religious the people are, the more they dislike and distrust the atheists.

At no point the 6 studies from the paper indicated that "atheists distrust other atheists". It does not contradict that, either, because simply they do not provide raw data.

In other words, if this is the study you had in mind, then it is very likely that you have misunderstood the study. Maybe you had something other paper in mind.

Also, if you showed the guy this paper, it is most likely that he has not read it either.

This would be like someone would make a study in which 10% of participants would be alt-righters, some 10% would be conservatives, and then they would find that alt-righters are the most distrusted group. THey would also add that "distrust to alr-right" is predicted by how much "progressive views" a person holds. Obviously, you would not use that study to state "see? it proves that alt-righters distrust other alt-righters"

@145 Snidely Whiplash
For God's sake.

Imagine that for 100 person, 10 would do as the person described in the study (get a money from the wallet), and all 10 of them would be atheists, and all 10 of that atheists would be teachers. In fact assume that those were all the atheists from the sample, while there were also 10 other non-atheists teachers, who were honest and innocent.

In that extreme case the "Richard was teacher" was of exactly the same probability as "Richard was teacher and atheist". You see? It's just impossible that "Richard was a teacher and atheist" to be more probable than "Richard was a teacher".

@144 James Dixon
No it can't. Imagine that indeed B (RIchard is an atheist) potentiates A (Richard is a teacher). Or, maybe you meant that (richard is a teacher and atheist) implies (richard is a thief). That still means that at most (A and B) is of the same probability as (A) alone [if richard is a thief, what is the probability he is (a) teacher (b) both teacher and atheist?]

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 29, 2016 12:57 PM  

@szopen
IT'S NOT A FUCKING SYLLOGISM
Only syllogisms can be fallacies.
That said, you're not thinking this through.
No one person is answering all of the surveys. Hundreds of people are answering hundreds of surveys. Each of them give the answer that best approximates their experience. Of the people who were given the choice of teacher vs non-teacher some percentage said, that this approximates their experience of teachers.

Of the people who were given the choice of Atheist teacher vs non-Atheist non-teacher, some other number of different people said this approximates their experience of Atheist teachers.

Those two numbers have literally no correspondence, because they are explicitly asking for an emotional reaction. Emotional reactions are not numeric, and not reasoned. That does not make them invalid, and in most cases they hold a higher correspondence to reality than the best reasoned reaction.

No one person is sitting down and saying "It's more likely that this guy is an Atheist teacher than that he is a teacher."

Blogger szopen June 29, 2016 2:05 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger szopen June 29, 2016 2:12 PM  

@147
Have you read the paper you are discussing now? have you at least read my direct quotation from that study which discusses the study?

NONE GOT THE CHOICE OF NON-ATHEIST TEACHER VERSUS ATHEIST TEACHER.

THE CHOICE WAS BETWEEN TEACHER (ATHEIST OR NOT) AND ATHEIST TEACHER.

GOT IT?

Not to mention it were not hundreds of people, but 26-27 people in each case (100-130 people in each study, divided into four groups).

They got following question:
Given A, what is more probable: B, or (B AND C)

For example:
"is it more probable that (a) Richard is a teacher or (b) Richard is a teacher and an atheist" in one group, and
"is it more probable that (a) Richard is a teacher or (b) Richard is a teacher and a rapist" in second group
and so on.

Also, it seems to me that you are saying that a lot of people were answering based on their experiences with rapist teachers, which is highly doubtful.

Anyway, the result is that in group where there was, say, at most 30 people, of which at most 6 were atheists or agnostics, 15 said that it is more likely that Richard was a teacher and atheist THAN Richard was a teacher (atheist or not). Study does not provide data on atheists' answers, only says that more religious were more likely to commit the conjunction fallacy. So, it is possible that all atheists said "Richard was a teacher", hence you cannot use this study to prove "atheists distrust other atheists".

Moreover, fallacy is:
wikipedia: "A fallacy is the use of invalid or otherwise faulty reasoning, or "wrong moves"[1] in the construction of an argument"

internet encyclopedia of philosophy: "A fallacy is a kind of error in reasoning"

Which is moot anyway, because conjunction fallacy is a formal name given to a well known phenomenon, which is described here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunction_fallacy

I have not invented the term. I am just using it.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 29, 2016 4:12 PM  

NONE GOT THE CHOICE OF NON-ATHEIST TEACHER VERSUS ATHEIST TEACHER.

THE CHOICE WAS BETWEEN TEACHER (ATHEIST OR NOT) AND ATHEIST TEACHER.

In English at least, that would equate to a choice between subsets "teacher" or "atheist teacher", which would be mutually exclusive.

Blogger SirHamster June 29, 2016 4:59 PM  

Next, participants chose whether they thought it more probable that Richard was either (a) a teacher or (b) a teacher and XXXX.

@szopen:

You're interpreting the question wrong. The question is asking how a person judges the probability of (A) versus (B), not the probability that it falls into either category, where the correct answer is always (A).

Example: Is it more probable that Richard is (a) a teacher; (b) a teacher and MALE?

Option (a) is 50% chance male or female.
Option (b) is 100% chance male

Given Richard is a male name ... which option is more probable? (b), it doesn't matter that (a) includes male teachers, because 100% > 50%.


Richard does not believe in God.
(a) teacher
(b) teacher and ATHEIST

Which is more probable? (b) is 100% disbelief in God and is more probable than (a), which includes the various theists.


These examples use the same question format with objective relationships. The question is fine for its purpose.

Blogger EscapeVelocity June 29, 2016 10:20 PM  

The rise of Atheism coincides with the fall of Europe.

These two things are not unrelated.

Blogger EscapeVelocity June 29, 2016 10:22 PM  

The rise of Atheism coincides with the fall of Europe.

These two things are not unrelated.

Blogger szopen June 30, 2016 3:27 AM  

@151
No.

Authors implicitly invoked "conjunction fallacy":


"in Study 2, we adapted a classic conjunction fallacy
paradigm" "We capitalized on this classic finding by presenting participants with a description of an untrustworthy individual and evaluating whether they committed the conjunction fallacy across a number of different target groups."

That is, it is not MY interpretation of the experiment. It is author's interpretation.

Also, your example is wrong. If Richard being teacher have 50% probability, then of course him being both male and teacher cannot be 100% probable. Option (A) "is he teacher" ask about how probable it is that he is a teacher, not how probable it is that he is male.

I am looking at someone. What is more probable:
(a) that someone is a girl (b) that someone is a girl and he/she has blue eyes?

Not that it matters. I am willing to admit that yeah, you are all right and there was no fallacy here. Heck, I will even admit that yeah, they all had experiences with atheist teachers and acted upon those experiences.

It still doesn't matter - the paper stil doesn't show that atheists do not trust other atheists more than other people, i.e. VD cannot say "this is a study i based my assertion on".

Either VD had in mind other study, or he read just the abstract (which is so ambiguous that it may indeed suggest that), or he had not paid enough attention during reading. Or he based his assertion on his personal experiences with atheists. Or he was just trolling.

Blogger szopen June 30, 2016 3:28 AM  

@152
And pop music. Do not forget about pop music. Rise of pop music is correlated with fall of europe. Those two things could not be unrelated.

Blogger SirHamster June 30, 2016 1:43 PM  

szopen wrote:

Authors implicitly invoked "conjunction fallacy":


I think you mean explicit (it was said), not implicit (it was unsaid). So they did. There's a criticism of the conjunction fallacy along the lines of what I'm pointing out.

I was addressing the complaint that the answers are irrational and give us no information on biases. I gave an example of how people can rationally read the question. Or perhaps the fallacy is that people implicitly assume that you're asking a more meaningful question.

Another way of looking at it is that because people fallaciously insert their own assumptions into the question, the inserted assumption gives you a measure of their bias.

Note that different labels gave different results! The differential gives us information on how people see particular labels.


szopen wrote:
Also, your example is wrong. If Richard being teacher have 50% probability, then of course him being both male and teacher cannot be 100% probable. Option (A) "is he teacher" ask about how probable it is that he is a teacher, not how probable it is that he is male.


I said 100% chance male (ignoring the poor females named Dick). Didn't say 100% chance male teacher. Pr_teacher(x) is present in both options and cancels out.


szopen wrote:
I am looking at someone. What is more probable:

(a) that someone is a girl (b) that someone is a girl and he/she has blue eyes?


(a).

Now change the inputs.

1. I am looking a person with blue eyes. (a) or (b)?
2. I am looking at a blonde. (a) or (b)?
3. I am looking at an albino. (a) or (b)?


szopen wrote:
It still doesn't matter - the paper stil doesn't show that atheists do not trust other atheists more than other people, i.e. VD cannot say "this is a study i based my assertion on".


I have no argument on what VD is basing his opinion on.

But use game theory: it's to an atheist's advantage to live in a religious society where he is tolerated and everyone else holds themselves to a known and fixed standard of conduct; than to live in an atheist society where anything goes and everyone knows it.

Blogger szopen June 30, 2016 2:39 PM  

@156 SirHamster
Let;s start with the last point. Your statement of the alternatives is wrong, as you omitted one possibility. One can live in atheist society where NOT anything goes.

I know the argument that without God, there cannot be objective morality, and I do not dispute it (in fact, I was convinced that it is right after a long dispute with one calvinist few years ago).

However, the fact is that (a) before this long argument i was convinced that objective morality exists and I am morally bounded by that morality, even though I am atheist. That may suggest that a lot atheists, who do not put too much thought into it, would still feel to be bounded by morality (e,g, not anything goes). (b) even though rationally I agree now that without God, objective morality does not exist, it does not matter, because I am hardwired to obey the morality. I have no choice over that matter, no more than over my preferences for young blue-eyed girls over fat old black women. And of course I am not an exception, as everyone is hardwired.

Therefore, an atheist society where does NOT anything goes is not just plausible and probable, it is a very real possibility - and while there are no 100% atheists' societies, there are societies with higher and lower number of atheists, and societies with higher number of atheists are LESS crime-prone, MORE trustful and so on (but I am not seriously arguing causation here - HBD+economy is at play here).

Now, going back to conjunction fallacy - OK, maybe for native speaker this is not so obvious as to me. I am aware of criticism of conjunction fallacy, but this was a minor point to me. I have not called this conjunction fallacy, and my criticism (that this study does not prove VD's point) is not based on whether this is fallacy or not.

However, in the first example [richard is a male] had probability 1 and let's say [richard is a teacher] has probability 0.5. Then, [richard is a teacher and male] has probability 0.5.

Now, with your further examples:
(1) (a) and (b) are the same probability. (if (a) is 0.5, then (b) is (100% chance for blue eyes)*(0.5 chance for a girl) = 0.5 overall.
(2) say blonde has 0.75 chance to be blonde and being a girl has 0.5 chance.
then (a) is 0.5 while (b) is 0.5*0.75 = 0.375, ie. (b) has lower probability than (a)

Blogger SirHamster June 30, 2016 5:32 PM  

szopen wrote:

Let;s start with the last point. Your statement of the alternatives is wrong, as you omitted one possibility. One can live in atheist society where NOT anything goes.


You'd have to show me. There are societies that can theoretically exist but for the fact humans would live in them.


szopen wrote:

Now, going back to conjunction fallacy - OK, maybe for native speaker this is not so obvious as to me. I am aware of criticism of conjunction fallacy, but this was a minor point to me. I have not called this conjunction fallacy, and my criticism (that this study does not prove VD's point) is not based on whether this is fallacy or not.


I don't have anything to add. You can treat my responses @151/@153 as examples of the conjunction fallacy. I still think there's something linguistically funny about the question.

Anonymous Tenet June 30, 2016 10:28 PM  

It's really remarkable to see how many atheists fail to understand what their "assume the other person is lying if he does not immediately present documentary evidence upon demand, which will of course be immediately dismissed for failing to meet the unexpressed demand for peer-reviewed and published scientific evidence" says about their personal integrity, or as is more precisely the case, their lack of it:

None of this is relevant, so I'll ignore it. You are just building strawman arguments as usual when talking about the hated infidels. Left-wing extremist tactics.

The amusing thing is that they still absolutely believe that they are the smart ones, the "bright" ones, because godless. It's now gotten to the point that when I hear someone is an atheist, rather than an agnostic, I now assume aggressive midwittery.

Umm...This is exactly how you act, Vox. Can't you see yourself? When you talk about the hated infidels you lack any facts whatsoever, and simply rely on hatred, arrogance and insults. You hope that will be enough.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Oh dear. So your argument is: "Just because I don't have any proof whatsoever doesn't mean I'm not right! My fantasy creature is real because I say so, I don't need any facts!" How mature of you.

And a refusal to provide freely available, readily accessible evidence on demand is not a reliable indication that the other party is lying.

Nope, your fantasy book "the Bible" doesn't count as evidence. Do you know the earth is round? So "the word of Yahweh!" bullshitted you on an extremely important point that a "god" should probably know about. And that's just the beginning.

What other "freely available evidence" are you talking about? That the world exists so therefore your religion must be right? Muslims, Jews, Hindus and African polytheists can all say the same. But of course, it's YOUR religion that is the true one without any facts to support it because ... because ... because....

Because you're acting like a little child who needs his comfort blanket. You're maintaining this state even in adult age. Sad.

Well, at least you have gotten away from the Xtian lie of race equality. "There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female, for all are brothers in Christ". You don't believe in that Jewish lie in the Bible, do you? Or the lie that we must "turn the other cheek" when we are attacked, because otherwise a fantasy creature will punish us when we are dead? Good. Then there's hope for you.

Anonymous Tenet June 30, 2016 10:35 PM  

"Personally I don't like atheists very much, it strikes me as unintelligent and unwise to call "religious" people who believe in god to be stupid or ignorant when claiming to know god does not exist is equally religious and ignorant."

Oh dear, Moonbear. You don't understand that the burden of evidence is on the person who makes shit up? If you claim that something invisible exists it's up to you to prove it, you can't be so dumb that you don't understand that. I don't have to prove that your fantasy doesn't exist. Any more than I need to prove that some lunatic at an asylum isn't a reincarnated Napoleon - the burden of evidence is on him, to prove his claim.

Or do you claim that the Hindu gods are real because no one can prove that they aren't? By your own logic you must now be a Hindu. Congratulations!

Blogger J A Baker July 01, 2016 6:12 PM  

@Tenet,

First off you are betraying your agitation by using profanity, which means that you are going into this discussion angry and that you are emotionally invested.

Not only do you use profanity, but you also belittle a person's faith by claiming it to be made up and calling the person dumb for believing. You don't deserve their time and effort.

You are trying to get the person as emotionally excited as you are, so that it becomes no longer a respectful discussion, but instead some sort of vulgar shouting match.

I am used to this, as I've debated many atheists and have found most of them to be dishonest in their motives for debate.

I have been expounding the idea that Christians argue for the veracity of the Bible from their beleifs in that veracity and thus I have gone back to using the Bible in my debates.

Atheists hate this and most of the time refuse to debate on these terms. Fine with me, I move on, I've got nothing to prove. I am grounded in my faith.

You say the burden of proof isn't on you, but you use much of your time and energy willingly engaging in debates with Christians. I think it is safe to say that you are the one who initiates many of these debates as if you go looking for fights.

So that is a point of dishonesty. You go out picking fights with Christians and demand that they prove to you that their God exists according to your standards of proof, and if they can't meet your demands you claim a false victory, and then you feign offense when they ask you to prove their God does'nt exist.

Going back to the Bible, the Bible doesn't command beleivers to get into hopeless debates with dishonest atheists and prove to them that God exists. The Bible says that evidence for God's existence is every where in His creation and can't be denied.

Beleivers are to preach the Gospel and call men to repentance. The supernatural power of the Holy Spirit will do the rest, and then it is up to the individual to accept or deny Christ's calling.

So, according to the Bible, you can't deny God's existence, you know God exists. But, because you love your sin you have denied Christ and to make yourself feel better about your sinful life you have put your self under a sort of spell, a delusion that helps you think that helps you decieve yourself into beleiving that God does not exist and therefore you can go on sinning without feeling guilty and repenting.

And like many mentally ill people who are deluded, you go around trying to decieve Christians in order to validate and continue living in your delusion. You want others to share in your delusion to make it seem more real, this is why you can't just live and let live, this is why you can't help yourself and are constantly trying to debate Christians.

So you come to us challenging our faith and trying to make us doubt. You think that we are in a fight for our lives as if your petty arguments and reasoning threaten to take away our hope and salvation, when all we have to do is poke one pin prick in your speal and be on our merry way.

As for the Hindu gods or any other gods for that matter. A Christian does not have to admit that they exist because they can't prove they don't. Again, going back to the Bible, it states that there is only one God and that is Jesus Christ. So, our faith in the absolute truth of that statement makes it impossible to believe in any other gods.


2 Thessaloins 2:

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts