An article worth reading

[Leontius]

http//:www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/twelve-reasons-why-i-never-argue-with-internet-atheists.html

[edgineered]

1. this link

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/05/twelve-reasons-why-i-never-argue-with-internet-atheists.html

Didn't read yet -

[Leontius]

2. Thats it, I screwed up my link thanks for showing one that works.

[Promethean]

3. So I read the piece and well...

As I was reading it I thought it was satire. The points brought up are among the silliest I know of in the "great debate" and nobody actually uses them. When I looked at the pen name of the person who wrote the article "Standing on my Head" I figured it definitely was satire. Then at the end of the article I looked up "Standing on my Head" to see if he had any other satires and it turns out, he was serious in the writing. I'm just not surprised by the intellectual bankruptcy of apologists anymore. I'm sure this guy isn't as odious as Kent Hovind but his arguments aren't any better.

[Leontius]

5. I think the point he makes

that many times people just talk past each other and don't really engage in honest discussion is a valid one.

[DetlefK]

15. Argument No.3

He says that religion isn't a matter of arguments. It's personal, it's about enlightenment, it's about believing. And then he complains that arguing over religion fails to convince atheists.

[cbayer]

4. I think it's unnecessarily provocative.

Clearly some people have gotten under his skin.

And while I think some of his points are true, what exactly is the point of making them other than to create a fight with people he says he doesn't want to fight with?

[Leontius]

6. If it causes some to look inside themselves

it serves a good purpose. I don't expect it to happen often but it might help some to understand.

[cbayer]

8. I'd bet the farm that it will not make anyone look inside themselves.

It will create defensiveness and a worsening of the divide.

There is not a single positive thing in there for someone to hang on to.

I do not believe it serves a good purpose and think it's really the wrong way to go about building bridges….

but I don't think that was his purpose.

[Leontius]

10. People are what they are

Take it and learn or move on. Whatever they do it's on them.

[cbayer]

11. Of course it's on them, but ask yourself how you would

react to a similar article about theists.

Let's start with:
1. Most of the internet theists I’ve come across are ignorant

[Leontius]

12. You see it here all the time

The believers are ignorant statement is a staple of what most atheists post, you know, stupid, uneducated bronze age goatherding beliefs are the standard retort for what faith is.

[cbayer]

17. Yes you do see it all the time and I don't think it accomplishes anything positive.

So, my takeaway from this is "turn around is fair play".

I guess so, but it doesn't fix anything. Sometimes it's better to take the high road, and I think he should have done that.

Oh, and it's not "most atheists". Not even close. It's a small group of people who are egged on by each other, live for the responses they get and are best ignored.

They are going to love this thread, just watch.

[Leontius]

19. Yeah it is "most"

you need to remove the blinders.

[cbayer]

21. I don't have on blinders and the fact that you think it's most means

they are winning.

They don't represent anyone here or in real life. They are loud but very small.

I have a small ignore list and I don't see hardly any of it.

You ought to try it.

[Leontius]

23. I do ignore those that deserve it

I don't confuse DU with "real life" real life is diverse with a whole smorgasbord of differing opinions, groupthink is not as prevalent or at least enforced as vigorously outside the bubble.

[cbayer]

27. I agree with you about the enforced groupthink

and it is why the vast majority of non-believers would never come near this group or A/A.

DU i think is a smorgasbord. Religion and A/A, not so much.

[Warren Stupidity]

7. "Wording"

Gee if it is so worth "wording" why didn't you post some of the words?

Oh right, rug already had his version hidden by jury for being a repulsive hate screed

[Leontius]

9. Thanks for pointing that out I'll fix it

[bvf]

14. Saw that too. n/t.

[rug]

33. Gee, you didn't put "repulsive hate screed" in your alert message.

Just this rancid piece of hypocrisy.

This poster just threw his out to inflame the large group of atheists on this forum. It is evidenced by the fact that the OP offered no opinion of his own which indicates that an honest discussion is not what the OP is looking for.

[Warren Stupidity]

37. I didn't alert.

Carry on.

[DetlefK]

13. An OP about exactly this article was hidden a few hours ago.

I wrote a point-by-point rebuke (which was fairly easy since the article is full of simplifications, inconsistencies, logical mistakes and ignorance about atheists) but it was already hidden by the time I was finished.

[Leontius]

16. Now you have a second chance to rebuke it

Be quicker and you might beat the deadline this time. I don't doubt the clock is ticking.

[DetlefK]

51. Real quick:

1. Slander: Atheists "don't know some stuff" about religion. As if theists know everything about atheism.

2. Slander: Atheists are "religion blind". What does that even mean?

3. Religion is personal experience, so arguments don't work. But believers proselytize anyway.

4. Arguments with internet atheists suck. (Why have arguments with them at all? Already forgot point 3?)

5. "Stop thinking about it and enjoy the ride."

6. You are allowed to talk about evidence if you know how evidence works. You can never be 100% sure about anything because you never have 100% of information. That's why scientists use so much statistics: "We are 99% sure that this is the explanation." I would like to see your calculations for the confidence-level of "The explanation is God."

7. Weird that saints and their miracles never show up when a camera is around...

8. I doubt that people call themselves atheists if they are pro-theism but anti-religion...

9. Do you know why atheists have faulty presumptions about your God? Because your God is one among thousands of gods. How are we supposed to know exactly which one you worship???

10. Why do atheists assume that believers believe in dumb stuff? Because we never know whether you mean that dumb, unrealistic piece of your belief as being literal or as being metaphorical. "Of course I don't believe in talking snakes! That's a metaphor for being a cocky smart-ass who thinks he's wiser than the authorities. But the all-powerful creator of everything is meant to be literal."

11. Your religion is precious to you and you don't want to see it made fun of. That's totally fine. But should be self-aware enough to ask yourself why you need religion when other people live happy, fulfilled lives without it.

12. Atheism is dull: It destroys mystery, it prevents you from experiencing something. This actually doubles as an argument why it's wrong to tell kids that Santa is fake. We can't we just keep the illusion going forever? They are so happy!

[mr blur]

70. Nice refutation! (nt)

[rug]

34. Somebody preferred to silence discssion tratheher than rebut it.

You took the right path.

Cowardly hypocrisy can't stand discussion.

[Warren Stupidity]

38. jury system sucks doesn't it?

[rug]

41. No, its the best thing about DU3.

For the most part it works fine. It doesn't do anything about the posters here who troll it as much as they do the forums and groups.

Case in point, the alert.

[Warren Stupidity]

45. Oh so it is fine except when it gets you.

[rug]

47. Oh, is that what I said?

Don't try to troll me, Warren.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. That is the implication.

Your hides are bullshit, everyone else's are great.

[rug]

53. That was your inference, your dishonest inference.

That implies trolling.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. Sure. That is why you are consistently and publicly upset every time you get a hide.

It is indeed my inference. As it is your inference that my commenting on your bringing this up is somehow trolling. Whatever floats your yacht, rug.

[rug]

56. Oh, bullshit, warren.

Your bullshit about a "hate screed" hide is pure trolling.

And I don't yacht. That's something that's done on Long Island.

[Warren Stupidity]

57. Nope. My comment about your op being a hate screed was accurate.

[rug]

59. So are my comments about what you're doing.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. The jury system you think works so well

seemed to agree that your op was unacceptable.

[rug]

64. It did. I'll remember the alert rationale:

This poster just threw his out to inflame the large group of atheists on this forum.

It works both ways.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. go for it.

And remember that you think this sort of alert is bullshit. But a perfectly fine system might just find 4 of 7 people here who have no clue about what is or is not acceptable in this forum.

[rug]

67. This Group is subject to the same rules as the rest of DU.

It's just easier to game.

QED.

[Warren Stupidity]

68. "it's just easier to game"

Indeed, many people get hides in here because outsiders don't understand that what is acceptable here may not be acceptable in gd. That is what makes it easier to game. And that is why the chronic alerters, and there are quite a few of them including many of your 'pals' here, and who knows, perhaps even you yourself, can be quite successful alerting on posts here. The system worked much better when a 4-2 vote was required. As it is the benefit from alerting is way too high.

[rug]

69. There are no "outsiders" here. it's a completely open Group.

You must be thinking of your echo chamber, where, btw, DU rules also apply.

And the "chronic alerters", despite your denial, are quite obvious.

[hrmjustin]

48. Well said Rug.

[NYC_SKP]

62. Just served on a jury.

It never ends.

[rug]

63. What's that phrase, "alert stalkers"?

[NYC_SKP]

65. Yup, that's the phrase.

And you and I gots 'em.

[hrmjustin]

49. It has its drawbacks but it works at times.

[Cartoonist]

18. Not worth reading

Not worth reccing either.

[Leontius]

22. Why is it not worth reading

This man has a point of view it may be accurate or not, it may be oversimplified, it may be spot on or it my to some just be provocative BS this is a discussion board isn't it.

[Cartoonist]

24. See reply #11

[Leontius]

25. You can get hurt and go home or you can stay and see if

there is anything beyond the first words. Maybe there is, maybe it's all just crap that's for you to decide.

[Cartoonist]

26. When those are your first words

You've established who's really ignorant. The man looking in the mirror.

[Leontius]

29. Then we've both met many posters who fit that bill.

And many who just wait a sentence or two to get there.

[Cartoonist]

42. I know someone who has made similar remarks

several times. It is why I am not surprised you posted this article and defend it so strongly.

[Leontius]

44. Why do you think I posted this?

"Strong" defense of it , Really?

[rock]

20. OK, I'll accept that.

If I lost an argument every time, that's what I would do. Don't bother to correct me and say he didn't say that. It's implied by his list of insipid reasons.

[edhopper]

28. oh, bother

[img][/img]

[Humanist_Activist]

30. A rebuttal...

1. Most of the internet atheists I’ve come across are ignorant - I would agree, because most people are ignorant, and argue from ignorance. This is also true of internet anythings, including religious people.

2. Most of the internet atheists are “religion blind” the way a person might be color blind - This one is meaningless without a definition of what he means by "religion blind".

3. Arguing religion doesn’t work - Generally I would agree, at least as far as attempting to change ones views of religion are concerned.

4. There are better debaters out there - This I agree with, at least when it comes to much of internet arguments, which are people arguing past each other.

5. I’m not that convinced about the usefulness of the “arguments” for God Much of this point is his opinion, I don't really find it relevant to anyone but to the author of the post.

6. Evidence? What Evidence? He goes into minutiae of detail that can be summed up as verifiable and/or testable evidence, claims he has it, mysteriously doesn't bring up any examples of it, then moves on.

7. I’m called to produce first hand evidence - What he describes here is personal experience and confirmation bias, not evidence, but again, his opinion.

8. Many atheists aren’t atheists at all - This one does bring up an important point, there are some maltheists out there, some mislabel themselves as atheists, these are people that are still hung up/angry at the religion of their birth/upbringing for various reasons. However, there are plenty of anti-religious people who are atheists as well.

9. I usually don’t believe in the God they don’t believe in - This one is rather infuriating, because he doesn't bother defining his god, and that's the problem. The slippery definition of god turns it into something meaningless. Whenever I argue a point about a god on DU or elsewhere, that god isn't the god that people believe in. Apparently Christians here believe in a metaphorical, pantheistic god of the brain, who doesn't literally exist for some reason, nor answers prayers, or something. I guess that makes them atheists.

10. There’s often a lot of rage, vulgarity and dumb stuff you have to wade through - Its the internet dude, get over it! Also, he closed the comments on his blog because of the vulgarity and stupidity posted...by the Catholics who agreed with him!

11. My religion is precious to me OK, good for you?

12, Atheism is dull - And? Is there a point to this one, he keeps going on an on about something most atheists would agree with anyways. Its a null hypothesis, no more, no less.


ON EDIT: In conclusion, his reasoning here, besides a couple of obvious points, he's arguing against any internet based argument. Nothing he mentioned is unique to arguing with atheists. As far as rudeness and vulgarity goes, well, Fr. Longenecker is not know to be, shall we say, civil when posting about LGBT people, for instance.

[Leontius]

35. Excellent

Well stated and I am sure you'll be surprised if I say I agree with most of what you say.

[Humanist_Activist]

39. Shouldn't be difficult, Father Dwight Longenecker is one of those guys who...

I can see easily driving more people from Church than to it. He's abrasive, intellectually shallow, bigoted, and very conservative/orthodox.

[rug]

36. I agree with 9 of your 12 points.

[Humanist_Activist]

40. I have to ask, which ones? n/t

[rug]

43. I disagree with yo on 6, 9, and 10.

As to 6, the demand for material, demonstrable evidence is the heart of the argument. By definition a god is super-natural, beyond the usual, natural metrics and tests. The challenge is really to the notion of such an entity, not its footprints. The challenge is philosophical. So, I disagree with the level of importance you give it.

As to 9, the portrayal of religion on the internet is sally a strawman. Understandably so, because it is then easier to push over. I really would like to see a discussion about a god or gods that does not start with a caricature.

As to 10, "Its the internet dude, get over it" hardly covers the assholery that goes on all over the internet, including here, whenever the subject of religion comes up. The internet is too powerful and valuable a resource to leave to high-fiving assholes, religious or atheist.

I think he and you have some very solid observations,

[Humanist_Activist]

46. I've seen atheists ask for some type of evidence that prayer works...

for example.

Number 9 isn't so much strawmen as the fact that gods are, by definition a caricature from some source, whether the Bible or the Bhagavad Gita, it doesn't really matter. What aggravates me is trying to GET a definition from a religious person. Something concise, that isn't something unrelated, like consciousness or "the universe", or whatever.

On number 10, the fact is that the internet is as powerful as it is because its mostly unfiltered, unregulated speech. Even normal rules of propriety are thrown out the window. Yes its dominated by assholes, so what? You learn to deal with it, and, if you own a website, filter it when you can.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. Your objection to number 6 is insufficient.

Inability to directly observe a supernatural creator doesn't mean we can't find real evidence of one. It is possible to determine the origins and cause of the universe without directly observing that God.

So far, no such God appears to be required, and no evidence of a divine manufacturer of the universe is apparent.

[rug]

54. So, you believe there is "real" evidence that is not material?

[AtheistCrusader]

60. Why wouldn't there be material evidence?

I mean, yes, at the fundamental level, the universe really is a hologram, but for arguments sake, let's call it material.

[rug]

31. FYI, this was the alert message:

This poster just threw his out to inflame the large group of atheists on this forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1218200612

I can't determine if there's more irony or more hypocrisy in that rationale.

[immoderate]

32. His real reason -- losing every argument!

How can there be evidence if the exact type of evidence must be specified in order for it to be fabricated rationalized produced?

--imm

[trotsky]

58. LOL

Best response.

I find it awfully funny too that someone who regularly argues with atheists on the Internet would post about why not to do it.

Oh well, another day, another piece of flamebait.