I hate it when anyone pulls this argument.

[Brian37]

Ok, just now on twitter a fellow atheist posted a video which I refused to watch, no not outright, just wanted to have an idea of the overall argument before watching it.

Even outside the issue of religion, I hated my teachers telling me to read something or watch something blindly without having an idea of what the message was. It is the same stupid idea that if you learn how Penn saws the woman in half before you see the trick, somehow knowing the secret behind it will make you lose your sense of awe for the creativity.

No, don't ask me to read something or watch something unless you give me the cliff notes first. That will allow me to understand as I read or watch. Some people don't mind jumping into something blindly, however, especially with slick religious apologists, you can get sucked into a bad argument very easily jumping in the deep end blind.

If you are not willing to inform me before hand what I am getting into, don't bother. The best cons inside and outside the issue of religion, rely on the mark going in blind.

Im not accusing my fellow atheist of this at all. I just think you should treat everyone as an individual and allow them to decide what they want to do instead of demanding they simply watch it or read it.

If your argument is valid, it should not bother you at all giving a summary of it first.

[Dystopia]

I agree - When someone posts a video I like to ask "why should I waste X minutes of my life watching this?"

[Brian37]

Um no.

Let me give you another example. On another website I have a guy who has a tremendous fascination with the religions of the Orient especially Buddhism. He thinks "it's complicated" and "how would you know if you haven't studied it" are good arguments to make me read it.

He's not wrong, it is complicated and yes there are tons of different oriental and Asian sects of Buddhism. But so what, I bet this same guy hasn't studied the 10,000 different competing sects of Christianity? So how is it he can rightfully reject the Christian religion? He doesn't want to see the overall pattern I see over the years that every religion makes these arguments.

Once you consider the age of the religions of antiquity it really does not take much to know that humans invent them.

---

Again, if your argument is valid it should not bother you to give a summary of it, short or long. All good cons inside and outside religion rely on the mark being blind going in.

[AFTT47]

Even outside the issue of religion, I hated my teachers telling me to read something or watch something blindly without having an idea of what the message was.

If you are not willing to inform me before hand what I am getting into, don't bother. The best cons inside and outside the issue of religion, rely on the mark going in blind.

If your argument is valid, it should not bother you at all giving a summary of it first.

I agree to a point. It does smack of dishonesty and insecurity if you pull that tactic. You should not need to resort to this if you are confident of your position. It is the mark of a poor debater. It does not necessarily negate his or her opinion, however.  

[Brian37]

Even outside the issue of religion, I hated my teachers telling me to read something or watch something blindly without having an idea of what the message was.

If you are not willing to inform me before hand what I am getting into, don't bother. The best cons inside and outside the issue of religion, rely on the mark going in blind.

If your argument is valid, it should not bother you at all giving a summary of it first.

I agree to a point. It does smack of dishonesty and insecurity if you pull that tactic. You should not need to resort to this if you are confident of your position. It is the mark of a poor debater. It does not necessarily negate his or her opinion, however.  

NO, if your argument has a valid point regardless, then the odds are it is universal and does not prop up personal bias. Good scientific method never argues "trust me". 

No that isn't why I posted this, it is more a general warning that it is a red flag inside and outside religion when someone starts off with "just trust me". 

[Dystopia]

Um no.

Let me give you another example. On another website I have a guy who has a tremendous fascination with the religions of the Orient especially Buddhism. He thinks "it's complicated" and "how would you know if you haven't studied it" are good arguments to make me read it.

He's not wrong, it is complicated and yes there are tons of different oriental and Asian sects of Buddhism. But so what, I bet this same guy hasn't studied the 10,000 different competing sects of Christianity? So how is it he can rightfully reject the Christian religion? He doesn't want to see the overall pattern I see over the years that every religion makes these arguments.

Once you consider the age of the religions of antiquity it really does not take much to know that humans invent them.

---

Again, if your argument is valid it should not bother you to give a summary of it, short or long. All good cons inside and outside religion rely on the mark being blind going in.

That's a to-quoque. The fact that person hasn't studied Christianity has no relevance whatsoever - yes some things can be criticized or debated but before you argue against something a bit more complicated try to study it a bit otherwise you risk making wrong assumptions about ideas. If someone wants to argue Islam causes violence it can be done by pointing out to ISIS, but if you read the Quran and know the verses it is so much easier.

[Brian37]

Even outside the issue of religion, I hated my teachers telling me to read something or watch something blindly without having an idea of what the message was.

If you are not willing to inform me before hand what I am getting into, don't bother. The best cons inside and outside the issue of religion, rely on the mark going in blind.

If your argument is valid, it should not bother you at all giving a summary of it first.

I agree to a point. It does smack of dishonesty and insecurity if you pull that tactic. You should not need to resort to this if you are confident of your position. It is the mark of a poor debater. It does not necessarily negate his or her opinion, however.  

In regards to this person on twitter, I didn't refuse to watch it she got upset because I simply asked her what her position was on the use of "agnostic" with "atheist or "theist". That is what the video was about. I simply wanted to know what her position was before I watched it. I don't care if it was 3 mins long or an entire book. I had seen that argument countless times between skeptics and liberal theists over the years. It's like saying even though you tell them you've seen the movie 20 times, they respond with "but this is the director's cut".

Even with that I was still willing to watch it regardless, simply refused when she wouldn't tell me EITHER WAY what her position was. The only thing that stopped me was her not telling me which side she was on.

---

Um no.

Let me give you another example. On another website I have a guy who has a tremendous fascination with the religions of the Orient especially Buddhism. He thinks "it's complicated" and "how would you know if you haven't studied it" are good arguments to make me read it.

He's not wrong, it is complicated and yes there are tons of different oriental and Asian sects of Buddhism. But so what, I bet this same guy hasn't studied the 10,000 different competing sects of Christianity? So how is it he can rightfully reject the Christian religion? He doesn't want to see the overall pattern I see over the years that every religion makes these arguments.

Once you consider the age of the religions of antiquity it really does not take much to know that humans invent them.

---

Again, if your argument is valid it should not bother you to give a summary of it, short or long. All good cons inside and outside religion rely on the mark being blind going in.

That's a to-quoque. The fact that person hasn't studied Christianity has no relevance whatsoever - yes some things can be criticized or debated but before you argue against something a bit more complicated try to study it a bit otherwise you risk making wrong assumptions about ideas. If someone wants to argue Islam causes violence it can be done by pointing out to ISIS, but if you read the Quran and know the verses it is so much easier.

We are not talking about competing scientific ideas here. If one can accept that humans can do good and bee good and not belong to the club you are fond of, then the kind motifs they point to is a refusal to consider that the ability to be kind is universal and is in our evolution, not the different stories we make up to convey the idea that being kind is good.

Islam has kind motifs in it, so does Christianity, so does Hinduism and Buddhism and every religion in the world can make claims to that affect. That should tell the religious it isn't religion doing it, it is our species doing it. The stories are what humans hide behind to claim to be patent holders of our common behaviors.