So a horse-loving, feminist-hating Roosh V fan popped into my Twitter mentions today, defending Roosh against accusations of rape by noting that he’s never actually been charged or convicted of rape. Which is true, though not actually proof of his innocence any more than OJ’s acquittal in criminal court is proof that he didn’t murder his ex-wife Nicole Brown Simpson and her friend.
When Phil pointed out that his belief that Roosh is a rapist seems to be supported by Roosh’s own words, Ms. Smith declared that Roosh’s own words didn’t count, because they appeared in a post of mine. And that’s when, for better or worse, I entered into the discussion myself.
And then I asked the questions I ask everyone who accuses me of taking quotes out of context: Have you read the original quotes in context, and if so, could you tell me how I misrepresented them?
I don’t think anyone I have ever asked these questions to has given me a satisfactory answer. Most slink off at this point, their bluff called.
But others continue to bluff and bluster onward, doing their best to avoid answering the questions — either because they have read the quotes in their original context, and know full well that I didn’t misrepresent them, or because they haven’t read the quotes in the original and don’t want to admit it.
Still, I don’t think I’ve ever run across a bluffer quite as brazen or as persistent as Ms. Smith, who somehow managed, over the course of several hours of on-and-off “debate,” to avoid saying whether or not she actually read any of the books she claimed I was misrepresenting. Or even the post of mine she was ostensibly critiquing.
As the hours went by, her attempts to wriggle out of answering these rather basic yes or no questions took on a kind of Dadaesque grandeur. Read on, if you have the patience for it.
Seeing the name “Mina” so often in my mentions made me think of the Bollywood classic “Eena Meena Deeka,” which is certainly more entertaining than Mina Smith’s “arguments” above.
Reminds me of a parody final exam question I saw back in university.
“Complete two of the following:
a) Discuss analysis.
b) Analyze discussion.
c) Describe ‘in terms of’ in terms of ‘in terms of.”
Mina needs a (new) hobby.
The thing is is that people who believe in god(s) cite the world as proof that god(s) exist because many religions say that god(s) created the world/universe. At least that’s what happens to me everytime I ask for proof. :/
@ Robert
“Prove this chair exists”
“What chair?”
I just visited her twitter. It turns out she’s one of those conspiracy theorists who think that the feminazis are trying to control words in order to demonize and/or destroy heterosexual relationships. As a result she feels that she not obligated to answer questions unless she feels you’ve ingested more redpills than your average hippie has ingested LSD.
@Pandapool:
But look at the trees! Look at how leafy and beautiful they are! You might think the earth could have evolved by random chance via a tornado through a junkyard full of watches, which has a probability of exactly 2.307*10^-eleventybajillion, but some of us don’t have that much faith! Where would the junkyard even come from? Junk implies a junker, you know.
Checkmate, atheists!
BTW, I recommend reading the book “Rules For Radicals” by Saul Alinksky, as the tactics she used was pulled straight from his book. For example:
“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.”
“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”
@Scarlettathena: “Let’s say there are people who believe in unicorns and others who don’t. The only ones who have burden of proof are those who claim unicorns exist.”
They do not automatically have any “burden of proof” to demonstrate the existence of unicorns to you in a manner that satisfies your own chosen criteria of empirical proof. You are not entitled to impose on them your belief (an axiomatic, unprovable belief) that there can’t possibly be any sort of reality that’s undetectable by reason and empirical evidence.
Now, if the unicornists want YOU to believe in unicorns, then yes, they need to be able to show you evidence for unicorns that meets your criteria. Otherwise, nope, they don’t. Your belief that it’s impossible for anything to be real unless it can be scientifically demonstrated in a manner that would convince a reasonable skeptic is not objectively any more true than the unicornists’ belief that unicorns are real in some sort of unexplained supernatural way that transcends empirical demonstration.
All your repeated insistence that claims about the supernatural “should at the very least be detectable [in an empirical way]” and “convince a (reasonable) skeptic that there’s something rather than nothing” and “show [in an empirical way] that … [alleged supernatural entity] works in a way [rationally] incompatible with chance or [scientifically] known mechanisms”, etc. etc., is just you failing to spot the circularity in your argument.
(And I repeat: I’m not trying to argue against atheist beliefs or convince anyone not to be an atheist. As an atheist myself, I also subscribe to the belief that ultimate reality is (probably) entirely comprehensible via rational and empirical means, and that there (probably) doesn’t exist any form of truth which is manifested through any kind of mystic revelation rather than evidence and reason. But neither you nor I nor any other atheist can possibly PROVE that that belief is true, and so we can’t logically demand that non-atheists must accept it as part of their own epistemic framework.)
@freemage: Sure, if we’re talking enactment of public policy, it makes perfect sense to establish non-supernatural ground rules for policy motivation. But some atheists, like @Scarlettathena, seem to be insisting on a much more draconian imposition of rationalist-materialist epistemological standards across the board.
“Seeing isn’t believing. It’s where belief ends, because it isn’t needed any more.” I think that’s a quote from Terry Pratchett’s Small Gods, but it may be from a friend different Discworld novel.
Faith by its definition is void of proof. A deity that asks for faith would not provide proof.
For those who think that’s an awfully convenient happenstance, you’re right, it is. A nonexistent deity would also fail to provide proof, being nonexistent.
IMO, what people have faith in is their business. It’s when they attempt to force or influence other people’s lives because of their faith that it isn’t okay.
*from a different Discworld novel.
Not sure where ‘ friend ‘ came from. I blame autocorrect.
“Who is this God person anyway?”
@Kimstu:
I think you were confusing scarlettathena and me with that one…
And I’m not sure I get what you’re saying. I agree that just walking up to a religious person and demanding they justify their beliefs to you, apropos of nothing, isn’t kosher. “Live and let live” would be the principle here; as long as their beliefs weren’t bothering you, then they don’t have to justify them to you.
That has nothing to do with epistemology.
You seem to be going beyond that by saying that expecting someone who believes in the supernatural to provide evidence of the existence of the supernatural that doesn’t rely on the existence of the supernatural as an axiom… is circular? I don’t follow. Or are you saying that “the non-existence of the supernatural” is the axiom I’m demanding such a person must accept? If so, then of course not, otherwise how could they ever convince me otherwise if they must accept the negation of their argument?
Let’s follow this line and talk about what’s actually real rather than what’s convincing. I agree that something can exist even if there is no way to scientifically detect or approach it. There are many things on planets orbiting stars in far off galaxies that we will never detect and yet still exist.
But that doesn’t get you very far. Existence of a god or other supernatural being must mean more than that; otherwise again, why bother talking about it? How could you even know about it in order to believe it? You don’t need a rationalist/materialist framework to have this mindset. This is just fundamental philosophy of knowledge.
The default position towards a claim has to be one of skepticism, no matter what the claim is. There is no other alternative; accepting every claim you hear if you can’t refute it doesn’t work. That’ts much more fundamental than a person’s epistemic framework; that’s a fundamental concept of epistemology itself. No atheist can PROVE that there is no such thing as mystic revelation, but when it comes down to deciding which claim needs the “proof” and which claim doesn’t, it’s the positive claim every time.
Again, going up to a person and demanding they justify themselves to you is rude. But when you’re talking about “burden of proof,” there is a “side” that does have to shoulder this burden, and it’s the one claiming that supernatural things exist.
I’m probably going to regret saying anything, but the way you guys are kinda talking about religion is making me uncomfortable (assuming I haven’t misread everything again)…
If we keep in mind the real golden rule (“Your right to punch ends where the tip of my nose begins”) and exclude all the people who don’t follow it (IE, the people who use their beliefs, regardless of what they are, to hurt others)… what’s the big deal if I believe in a deity who’s made everything? Is there some reason that CAN’T be true? I mean, who’s to say God didn’t create everything in a more primal way, then gave us all the ability to change and evolve so he could watch us, thus letting us live in our own way? Science exists, evolution exists, but why is it so strange to think that there was a deity’s hand in bringing origins about and letting intelligent people figure things out for themselves (or even giving some people who pray a small push to inspire their own creativity)?
I’ve gotten ridicule and hate, both online and off, about that, and I don’t really understand why it’s MY job to prove something that someone either isn’t going to believe no matter what I say or who’s going to just ridicule me more for it and point and laugh. It’s made me honestly side-eye most people who start talking about this sort of thing, because… really, I don’t see the point to why we need to prove ourselves? Why do we, who live on faith, suddenly need to define it to people who don’t?
I could be just reading everything wrong, and if so, I’m really sorry and please bap me for doing so, but the discussion’s kind of reminded me of a lot of flak I got and it makes a usually entertaining comment section uncomfortable for me. So since you guys are usually pretty nice to people, I thought, well, might as well take a dive and hope I don’t make everyone hate me or mess something up?
Tossing away the concept of “burden of proof” is like tossing away “logic…” All you can do afterwards is give up on the conversation, but you don’t have to attack the fundamentals of knowledge in order to do that.
@Broken Butterfly:
No, no, that’s understandable. I’ve seen it myself where people take something like what I was talking about burden of proof and take it way far to the realm of “therefore it’s stupid to believe in god and you’re terrible for doing it.”
That’s not my position at all… If you don’t want to try to argue for your beliefs, I’m not going to sit here and say you have to anyways. I’m only talking about rules regarding people who do want to argue for their beliefs. I’ll try to be more careful about my wording if this conversation continues…
I know another argument tatic is to quote this bible verse I think which involves something about only needing faith to prove god or some shit? What a failsafe to totally avoid having to prove god exists. Whoever translated that should get a medal.
Wow, David. You have infinitely more patience than I do.
@kirbywarp
Oh! That… makes a lot more sense, sorry. I guess I misunderstood. ^^;
@pandapool
I don’t think I remember that verse, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was there. I feel like a lot of the Bible is God’s word corrupted by human hands, though? If that makes sense.
@Pandapool:
My favorite is “The fool in his heart hath said that there is no God.” Why provide evidence to try to convince someone when you can claim that that evidence already exists, whatever it may be, and the other person is just denying it in bad faith?
Damn! Thank you! It’s almost four decades since I’ve seen this kind of Bollywood pure curried corn! (Though I did have a recording of the live-actor Jungle Book, clearly Bollywood’s revenge on Kipling).
@Broken Butterfly:
Don’t even worry about it. This is almost kind of a new position for me to take… I used to be the more hardlined stereotypical atheist, thinking all religion was awful and on and on. I wouldn’t be shocked if I still had remnants of that floating around…
Given that the Bible has been translated and retranslated, and that there are demonstrable passages that were translated in a certain way to fit the orthodoxy of the time, this wouldn’t be surprising at all. Even if the bible were divinely inspired, there’s plenty of evidence of human motivation as well.
Of course, what I say is from my own experience which come from having to deal with really, really religious folks that sneer at you if you aren’t the right denomination let alone atheist. And, honestly, I’ve never brought up my aethism out of context, only when people start talking religion at me which I explain that I know nothing about because I’m an aethist…which is why I just hmm and nod my head whenever that shit happens now.
It gets tiring having to deal with intolerant religious people. It’s a stupid circular argument that you just walk away Mad and bitter from and, in my case, hating fucking religion even more so than ever.
Oh, sure, if there is a god or gods, I like their work – Earth, water, stars, raspberries, dragons – but their fanbases are shit.
As long as I’m not being required to act like I believe in unicorns (avoid certain parts of the forest or certain fruits for example) you’re welcome to believe in all the unicorns you believe in. If you’re requiring me to act in a certain way because of your belief in unicorns, then we’re going to need to talk about proof.
According to pretty much every Rabbi ever, the bible as a fucking shit ton of wrongly translated shit in it. On top of that, it’s edited by people with adgendas who use the thesaurus to totally change the meaning of passages without “changing” the meanings of the passages. On top of that, there’s also several versions of the bible. On top of THAT, people like to pick and choose what they want to heed to, which is why there’s a billion sects of Jesus followers out there.
So, I mean, the hell?
@Pandapool
Much like Homestuck and Sonic, it’s the fanboys that ruin all the good things.
Serious answer: I’m so very sorry that you had to deal with that. I hate people who are that way, because it’s so completely OPPOSITE to how they should be acting overall that it just makes me shake my head. The foundation of a good religion, I believe, is love and respect, no matter what the other person is or believes, but so many people seem to just… discard that.
@kirbywarp
Okay! <3 Yeah, I can honestly understand why some people would think all religions are awful, with how the vocal idiots are, but (ironically), Not All Religions/Religious People, y'know?
And yeah, there really is. It's why even though I consider myself Christian, I don't follow a lot of the laws/things in the Bible; it just smacks too much of "human meddling" to me.