(November 8, 2016 at 10:15 am)Rhythm Wrote: We all know that RR isn't such a person..I think, but why he would endeavor to make himself out to -be- such a person is just another one of those "wtf?" questions, from where I sit. What kind of thread is this supposed to be, what kind of conversation, exactly, does RR want to have?

Which is exactly why I don't think you're being too harsh on him at all. Like you, I'm also fairly certain that RR does not actually think in the absurd terms he is describing here, which is why he deserves to be called out on his BS.

In fact, I think I'd have more respect for him (and certainly more fun WITH him) if he were simply bat-shit crazy, rather than have to watch him create these threads which boast the illusion of a genuine interest in intellectual discourse on a subject, only to see them unravel into the transparent attempt at justifying his irrational religious beliefs that they ACTUALLY are.

What he's got here basically, is a running tu quoque fallacy buried in equivocation:

"If you're telling me that I need supporting evidence and I can't rely on testimony alone to believe bible claims, then I'm telling you that every type of evidence in the world, including scientific evidence, is really all just "testimony". Therefore, you're as irrational in your belief that police shootings are real as I am in my beliefs about Christianity."

(And Harry Potter, apparently...[emoji848])

Wow. Stand-up argument, right there, lol. Anyone peddling such stinky horse shit deserves to be verbally dick-punched.

28 pages and I still don't even get what point is being argued for. No one is stopping people believing anecdotes. No one has to even defend why they believe something if they don't want to. So what is this about? If there was a category for "least apparent position" I would vote for RR in a heartbeat.

I used to find all this very annoying, but now it's just kind of fascinating. This is turning "not having a position" into an art form. If I had to guess, I'd say RR is one of a small number of theists we have here who are self-aware enough to realise that if they stated their beliefs plainly, they would sound very stupid and would be indefensible. So instead they only vaguely hint at their position, while attacking the "opposition" to this unknown position. (Try and get him to say how he thinks creationism actually works.)

The range of tactics on display here is quite astonishing. I think my favourite is getting other people to define your terms, then getting them to make your argument for you, then disagreeing violently with this position without saying how yours actually differs. I wonder how much cognitive dissonance this kind of thing causes a person. It must be exhausting to have to constantly shield one's points and beliefs. I suppose the strategy is that no one can shoot at a target if you never hold it up.

I'm not trying to be mean. I'm just discussing the very interesting psychology on display here. What I think we're actually seeing, as is often the case, is religious beliefs polluting methodology. In order to maintain the illusion that such beliefs are based on credible methods, the same methods must be presented as credible with respect to non-religious situations. But of course, they are not; as is demonstrated every single time an actual example is mentioned. If the religious person really did use the same methodology they would be either insane or just completely vulnerable as a very gullible person.

Anecdotes might be true. Really? Never considered that. I doubt anyone here would ever argue with this statement, so again, what is the point of this? If a person is not convinced by a particular anecdote or set thereof, is this an attempt to batter them into submission?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:How do you know that these "facts" are possible?   I personally have never seen a cop shoot an unarmed man (or anyone for that matter).   Shouldn't you need to provide evidence for the case, you are attempting to make?  Is it only what you have seen, that you consider possible?

Have you seen a cop? Have you seen a gun? Do you know any laws of biology, chemistry, physics, or psychology that would prevent a cop from shooting an innocent unarmed person?

You don't actually have to see the shooting to know it's possible. But you DO have to be familiar with the existence of the elements involved to know it's possible. The existence of supernatural beings is simply not being held to a different standard than the existence of unjustified police shootings.

If you were an alien unfamiliar with any of the elements of an unjustified police shooting, you would be justified in asking for evidence of the elements involved in such a shooting. I could take you to a shooting range and teach you about guns. I could introduce you to police officers. I could provide copious evidence that humans are fallible and susceptible to bias, corruption, errors of judgment, and panic. And I could provide the footage and details of investigations to close the deal; but that last thing should not at that point be necessary to establish that such a thing is possible, the prior elements establish that.

You're trying to create a false equivalence between being open to accepting reports of something we didn't see personally but know all the elements that would make it possible; and being open to reports of something that hasn't had its possibility established in the first place. We're the aliens in the latter scenario, and it's reasonable to expect you to do the equivalent of taking us to the shooting range and demonstrating human fallibility before we even entertain the possibility that your report might be true and means what you think it does.

(November 8, 2016 at 1:44 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

RoadRunner79 Wrote:How do you know that these "facts" are possible?   I personally have never seen a cop shoot an unarmed man (or anyone for that matter).   Shouldn't you need to provide evidence for the case, you are attempting to make?  Is it only what you have seen, that you consider possible?

Have you seen a cop? Have you seen a gun? Do you know any laws of biology, chemistry, physics, or psychology that would prevent a cop from shooting an innocent unarmed person?

You don't actually have to see the shooting to know it's possible. But you DO have to be familiar with the existence of the elements involved to know it's possible. The existence of supernatural beings is simply not being held to a different standard than the existence of unjustified police shootings.

If you were an alien unfamiliar with any of the elements of an unjustified police shooting, you would be justified in asking for evidence of the elements involved in such a shooting. I could take you to a shooting range and teach you about guns. I could introduce you to police officers. I could provide copious evidence that humans are fallible and susceptible to bias, corruption, errors of judgment, and panic. And I could provide the footage and details of investigations to close the deal; but that last thing should not at that point be necessary to establish that such a thing is possible, the prior elements establish that.

You're trying to create a false equivalence between being open to accepting reports of something we didn't see personally but know all the elements that would make it possible; and being open to reports of something that hasn't had its possibility established in the first place. We're the aliens in the latter scenario, and it's reasonable to expect you to do the equivalent of taking us to the shooting range and demonstrating human fallibility before we even entertain the possibility that your report might be true and means what you think it does.

If there were an equivocation award here at AF, it would go to RR.

(November 8, 2016 at 1:01 pm)robvalue Wrote: 28 pages and I still don't even get what point is being argued for. No one is stopping people believing anecdotes. No one has to even defend why they believe something if they don't want to. So what is this about? If there was a category for "least apparent position" I would vote for RR in a heartbeat.

Yeah, he is VERY practiced at obfuscating his actual position.  Reminds me a bit of Wooters, in fact.

alpha male Wrote:

Alasdair Ham Wrote:You're being shitty.

Was Rhythm being shitty in calling his post a shitpost?

RR is absolutely right. I see the same regularly here myself. To be fair, on majority theist forums theists probably do the same to atheists. Here, yes, atheists with nothing to say will pile on against a theist, particularly if the theist is doing well.

You think questioning the possibility of police shootings being real is doing well?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:

Rhythm Wrote:Do you think that people only accept that cops exist, or that cops shoot people, because of testimonial evidence?  Is that the sum total of evidence for cops, or cops that shoot people?  There is no other evidence.  No men in uniforms with guns and badges?  No bodies laying on the ground shot by men in uniforms with badges?  No video of men in uniforms with badges shooting people or standing over bodies on the ground? 

Perhaps, but I am awaiting evidence.

Evidence of what, exactly?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:I have yet to see a scientific peer reviewed and repeatable experiment which testifies to such.

Testifies to what, exactly?

RoadRunner79 Wrote:But you also bring up another bad and related argument with the video. If I believed those video's, then wouldn't I also be required to believe the videos depicting Harry Potter, as evidence?

If there was no way to distinguish a video of Harry Potter from other kinds of videos, perhaps.

(November 8, 2016 at 9:38 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Lol, your perception is that RR is do well?

Yes, and the lol is another giveaway.

He's making the point that much of what we think we know comes from anecdotal evidence, and that's true. It's so obvious that his opponents are asserting bad definitions to try to salvage their points.

(November 8, 2016 at 1:51 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: You think questioning the possibility of police shootings being real is doing well?

Do you think there's a possibility that he's rhetorically using exaggeration to make a point?