(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: First, you say "selfish atheist" is a commonly held, idea/trope that is maybe wrong. So my claim is, what? Prejudiced or invalid? Not worth listening to? I've listened to plenty of people, address atheism, argue it.
There are selfish atheists, unselfish atheists, selfish theists, and unselfish theists. But it's a commonly-held trope that atheists are selfish. I'm not saying your claim is prejudiced or invalid, I'm pointing out that it regurgitates stereotypes without questioning them.
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: Maybe once or twice have I heard the 'selfish atheist' term said and I'm not even sure about that. You say I have an unsupported Atheism claim. Please do support your claim that 'selfish atheist' is a commonly held idea. Considering your high standards for evidence, I expect I will be impressed and enlightened.
I asked you first to support your positive claim. It is unsupported because you haven't linked to reputable sources showing that atheists in fact donate less.
As for my writing that "selfish atheist" is a trope, well, perhaps you should read a little. Maybe talk to some of the Christians in your life. Maybe go on Christian forums where much back-patting happens. I don't think there's any scientific study on the matter, if that is what you're asking for, but I also don't see you providing anything other than your own anecdotal experience, in which case you really ought not ask me to satisfy evidentiary standards you cannot meet yourself.
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: Btw, the above response is me supporting my claim.
Not so, sirrah -- repeating a claim is no giving evidence for it.
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: Regarding AI:
1. A limited number of minor, technical errors in a video or document, does not automatically invalidate the entirety of it.
Human made documents can contain typos that do not invalidate the document. The video does not demonstrate your otherwise valid point.
2. You only use human made evidence? Do I need to delve into the problems of human error?
3. It's true that the way an AI comes to it's results is obscure, and problematic. There are ways to check its results.
When asked, the AI I use provides links to human sources, which you prize, to support it's results.
I use the links, though not always. Certainly should use them more.
It's funny that you mention "human error". You see, when you ask AI a question, it searches human input and collates it without regard for sourcing or citation which supports it. This is why you get airplanes with propellers coming out of engine nacelles rather than off the spinner, which any human would recognize as wrong.
Now, rather than obvious photographical errors such as above, now try to correct written errors which may or may not be obvious to the reader.
In the fields I care about and study, I know who is trustworthy and who isn't. I've also read enough that when some human gets something wrong in those fields, I can raise a question-mark. The problem with your approach is that while your AI analyses may provide source-citations, you yourself have no way of knowing how the AI has analyzed the information, what data-points it has weighted, and whether or not it has cross-checked itself.
And yes -- I only use human sources, and I am well aware of the possibility of error, which is why I cross-check. It's laborious, and AI is easy, but facts matter more to me than ease.
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: My statements, which you asked evidence for:
1) According to a 2022 Survey 63 percent of all food banks were religious.
The website is BMC Public Health.
The research report is titled "A descriptive analysis of food pantries in twelve American states: hours of operation, faith-based affiliation, and location"
Oooh, 12 states out of, what is it now, fifty?
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: 2) Additionally, in the states surveyed, half of the religious congregations gave time and money to both christian and secular food banks.
Let's see those proportions.
(June 30, 2025 at 9:15 pm)Sandman Wrote: Okay, I followed the AI generated link and got an article:
The website is: The Conversation
The Article is: "Nearly half of all churches and other faith institutions help people get enough to eat"
The research this article references is behind multiple paywalls.
If I had followed this link, I would have not made statement 2. so I definitely got that wrong. My bad. I should have followed the link first. Even so,
The AI also provided examples like the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. A search of that site reveals multiple churches that support the organization.
Yeah, that doesn't answer my points, or points raised by others.
Think for yourself, brotha. Seriously.
