Don't Be Like Elvis!

[Uber Genius]

When discussing issues about what is real in the world, especially issues that are controversial, such as the claim God (does/does not) exist, one should take one's time and assess the reasons for and against their view carefully and giving every effort to understand and represent the opposing view accurately.



In college I discovered that my arguments for the existence of God were formed based on a special revelation, namely the Bible. My interlocutors often didn't share my unwavering confidence in those sources. Soon I would take philosophy courses that were taught by philosophy professors, the majority of whom were atheists. Being soundly beaten around the head and shoulders, metaphorically, for my theism, I retreated to reevaluate my strategy of engagement.

I invested hundreds of hours reading the best atheistic books from Voltaire and Hume, to Friedrich Nietzsche to Santayana and Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles Templeton, Antony Flew, A.J. Ayer, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenberg, J.L. Mackey, and J.H. Sobel's tour de force "Logic and Theism," and Graham Oppy's "Arguing about the gods," and countless articles over a period of 40 years.

I continue to find individuals at CF and other social media sites that refuse to do even a 10-second search to understand terms let alone make the slightest attempt to engage each other's opposing claims fairly, and with well-researched and well-thought out arguments.

One recent account involved (3 separate individuals and over a dozen such infractions, not to mention others cheering them on):

• Misrepresentation of basic terms (equivocation)
• Misrepresentation of basic concepts (equivocation)
• Attempt to avoid conversation and change subject (red herring)
• Refusal to do basic research that would have required 30 seconds of investment (laziness)
• Refusal to click on link provided of research for their, not my position (More laziness)
• Refusal to click on and just watch one 7-minute video summarizing the content of my argument (Elvis-like laziness)
• Attacking strawmen
• Various snob and mob appeals

I am reminded of stories of Elvis Presley after a show. He would be so high on pills that he would have his staff cook for him, cut his food, push it in his mouth, push his jaws up and down to chew the food, and then rub his throat to try and get him to swallow. I don't know if those accounts are true, but if so I now know what they must have felt like.

After a week of trying to get the slightest effort out of individuals discussing reasons to believe God might exist, I have failed utterly, but not for lack of trying.

No matter what one's views (Theist, weak agnostic, strong agnostic, atheist), researching one's opponent's claims for technical meaning, accurate representation of those views, comments that are germane to the topic at hand, and not repeating common fallacious ideas debunked 50+ years ago, are all signs that one is taking this knowledge project seriously.

For those who demand they be treated like Elvis was by his staff, I encourage a response:

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

Go out to their profile and click "Ignore."

After all, who has so much time on their hands that they can afford to help others prepare, cut, chew, and swallow their food?

 

[Ophiolite]

You seem to have ignored the possibility that some of us may have had an eight course banquet of opposition arguments on more than one occasion in the past and will only try a sampler of yet another feast on offer if there is a clear possibility it contains something novel. That's not laziness. That's just effective time management.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

• Misrepresentation of basic terms (equivocation)

• Misrepresentation of basic concepts (equivocation)

On some things there is a "in the eyes of a beholder". I've been accused of equivocation a number of times, I think many time falsely.

One time, just last week I was using the role of a "judge" applied to God. The skeptic / atheist claimed that was "equivocation" because earthly judges are not omniscient etc. even though God in the scriptures uses that title, and even fulfills that role. In my thinking that is not equivocation that is just using an analogy, parable, type etc. (and throwing around that accusation is just lazy and shows that the person is not genre savvy at all).


I also personally see equivocation accusations on various issues where you might be suggesting or trying to propose some kind of continuum where some things can be close to X, or even exist in a defacto / "As IF" way, but the other-side suggests "No it's either A or B". (Basically lots of people like to use hard logic, when many things exist in terms of fuzzy logic).

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

Go out to their profile and click "Ignore."

I do that, but I don't tell people when I ignore them out of basic decency and I think the board has various rules against goading where that or similar things are frowned upon.

 

[Uber Genius]

On some things there is a "in the eyes of a beholder". I've been accused of equivocation a number of times, I think many time falsely.

Equivocal as in not univocal.

An honest person would have said, "Well I assume you are using the term "Judge" to describe a role God plays, since ontologically, God's omni attributes are incomparable to humans?"

So they are attacking a strawman by their false accusation.

I do that, but I don't tell people when I ignore them out of basic decency and I think the board has various rules against goading where that or similar things are frowned upon.

Now having read of all the ill-will on the part of my interlocutors, dozens of misrepresentations of fact and of my words, would anyone feel that I was the one goading, after suffering such abuse in dozens of misrepresentations?

dozens of misrepresentations, mob and snob appeals, appeals to mockery> ignore due to lack of effort to gain knowledge on topic> warning for goading???

Makes no sense.

 

[Uber Genius]

Funny enough, I already have "Show Ignored Content" appearing on this thread.

I don't think I will chew someone's food any more. I just can't imagine that after so many years of the abuse I mention in the post above that either:

a: any on my short "ignore list" are going to change,
b:someone has a counter-argument to the proposition that we should be careful to understand each others' claims and accurately represent them having studied the issues rather than spray off-the-cuff comments, debunked for 50 years.

 

[Steve97]

When discussing issues about what is real in the world, especially issues that are controversial, such as the claim God (does/does not) exist, one should take one's time and assess the reasons for and against their view carefully and giving every effort to understand and represent the opposing view accurately.



In college I discovered that my arguments for the existence of God were formed based on a special revelation, namely the Bible. My interlocutors often didn't share my unwavering confidence in those sources. Soon I would take philosophy courses that were taught by philosophy professors, the majority of whom were atheists. Being soundly beaten around the head and shoulders, metaphorically, for my theism, I retreated to reevaluate my strategy of engagement.

I invested hundreds of hours reading the best atheistic books from Voltaire and Hume, to Friedrich Nietzsche to Santayana and Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles Templeton, Antony Flew, A.J. Ayer, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenberg, J.L. Mackey, and J.H. Sobel's tour de force "Logic and Theism," and Graham Oppy's "Arguing about the gods," and countless articles over a period of 40 years.

I continue to find individuals at CF and other social media sites that refuse to do even a 10-second search to understand terms let alone make the slightest attempt to engage each other's opposing claims fairly, and with well-researched and well-thought out arguments.

One recent account involved (3 separate individuals and over a dozen such infractions, not to mention others cheering them on):

• Misrepresentation of basic terms (equivocation)
• Misrepresentation of basic concepts (equivocation)
• Attempt to avoid conversation and change subject (red herring)
• Refusal to do basic research that would have required 30 seconds of investment (laziness)
• Refusal to click on link provided of research for their, not my position (More laziness)
• Refusal to click on and just watch one 7-minute video summarizing the content of my argument (Elvis-like laziness)
• Attacking strawmen
• Various snob and mob appeals

I am reminded of stories of Elvis Presley after a show. He would be so high on pills that he would have his staff cook for him, cut his food, push it in his mouth, push his jaws up and down to chew the food, and then rub his throat to try and get him to swallow. I don't know if those accounts are true, but if so I now know what they must have felt like.

After a week of trying to get the slightest effort out of individuals discussing reasons to believe God might exist, I have failed utterly, but not for lack of trying.

No matter what one's views (Theist, weak agnostic, strong agnostic, atheist), researching one's opponent's claims for technical meaning, accurate representation of those views, comments that are germane to the topic at hand, and not repeating common fallacious ideas debunked 50+ years ago, are all signs that one is taking this knowledge project seriously.

For those who demand they be treated like Elvis was by his staff, I encourage a response:

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

Go out to their profile and click "Ignore."

After all, who has so much time on their hands that they can afford to help others prepare, cut, chew, and swallow their food?

Look into Francis Schaeffer.

 

[Uber Genius]

Look into Francis Schaeffer.

Read his 5-volume set back in 1980s. He is certainly a CS Lewis-like figure, of a Chesterton.

Escape from Reason and the book and later, video series by his son Franky ( who is now an atheist of sorts) How Then Shall We Live, were very helpful in forming my early Christian worldview.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

So they are attacking a strawman by their false accusation.

Yes. At the very least it was a kind of attempted Bait and Switch slight of hand, attempted Jedi Mind Trick that did not work on me.

Now having read of all the ill-will on the part of my interlocutors, dozens of misrepresentations of fact and of my words, would anyone feel that I was the one goading, after suffering such abuse in dozens of misrepresentations?

dozens of misrepresentations, mob and snob appeals, appeals to mockery> ignore due to lack of effort to gain knowledge on topic> warning for goading???

Makes no sense.

There is plenty of reason to do the "Shake the dust off your feet", when it comes to managing your time and energy, frustration level etc.

 

[Uber Genius]

Yes. At the very least it was a kind of attempted Bait and Switch slight of hand, attempted Jedi Mind Trick that did not work on me.





There is plenty of reason to do the "Shake the dust off your feet", when it comes to managing your time and energy, frustration level etc.

But most of the "Seekers," and "Atheists" are not like the individuals that I "Ignored"

Many appreciate that I have led them to improve their arguments even though they point away from my view.

I have a series called "Tricks Theists Play," that identifies faulty arguments from theists. I also give atheists resources to improve their arguments for atheism such as improved arguments from hiddeness, evil and suffering, hell, or various incoherency arguments from the divine simplicity vs a trinitarian being or a timeless God being able to interact in time, etc.

Many atheist here appreciate my helping them argue more cogently, but I still run into the occasional individual to whom this thread is dedicated.

Some theists are in the same boat making no attempt to research or accurately represent others claims. I see it as a human issue and one based on emotional maturity so not unique to any belief system.

I have misunderstood claims and am quick to rectify and apologize for material misrepresentations. It seems that my points above are so universal as to be completely uncontroversial.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

When discussing issues about what is real in the world, especially issues that are controversial, such as the claim God (does/does not) exist, one should take one's time and assess the reasons for and against their view carefully and giving every effort to understand and represent the opposing view accurately.



In college I discovered that my arguments for the existence of God were formed based on a special revelation, namely the Bible. My interlocutors often didn't share my unwavering confidence in those sources. Soon I would take philosophy courses that were taught by philosophy professors, the majority of whom were atheists. Being soundly beaten around the head and shoulders, metaphorically, for my theism, I retreated to reevaluate my strategy of engagement.

I invested hundreds of hours reading the best atheistic books from Voltaire and Hume, to Friedrich Nietzsche to Santayana and Bertrand Russell, Jean-Paul Sartre, Charles Templeton, Antony Flew, A.J. Ayer, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenberg, J.L. Mackey, and J.H. Sobel's tour de force "Logic and Theism," and Graham Oppy's "Arguing about the gods," and countless articles over a period of 40 years.

I continue to find individuals at CF and other social media sites that refuse to do even a 10-second search to understand terms let alone make the slightest attempt to engage each other's opposing claims fairly, and with well-researched and well-thought out arguments.

One recent account involved (3 separate individuals and over a dozen such infractions, not to mention others cheering them on):

• Misrepresentation of basic terms (equivocation)
• Misrepresentation of basic concepts (equivocation)
• Attempt to avoid conversation and change subject (red herring)
• Refusal to do basic research that would have required 30 seconds of investment (laziness)
• Refusal to click on link provided of research for their, not my position (More laziness)
• Refusal to click on and just watch one 7-minute video summarizing the content of my argument (Elvis-like laziness)
• Attacking strawmen
• Various snob and mob appeals

I am reminded of stories of Elvis Presley after a show. He would be so high on pills that he would have his staff cook for him, cut his food, push it in his mouth, push his jaws up and down to chew the food, and then rub his throat to try and get him to swallow. I don't know if those accounts are true, but if so I now know what they must have felt like.

After a week of trying to get the slightest effort out of individuals discussing reasons to believe God might exist, I have failed utterly, but not for lack of trying.

No matter what one's views (Theist, weak agnostic, strong agnostic, atheist), researching one's opponent's claims for technical meaning, accurate representation of those views, comments that are germane to the topic at hand, and not repeating common fallacious ideas debunked 50+ years ago, are all signs that one is taking this knowledge project seriously.

For those who demand they be treated like Elvis was by his staff, I encourage a response:

"Ignored, due to excessive laziness."

Go out to their profile and click "Ignore."

After all, who has so much time on their hands that they can afford to help others prepare, cut, chew, and swallow their food?

Uber, you've soundly echoed many of the things I've felt over the years in talking to other people about the Christian Faith, particularly those who seem to say they want to know but then have a counter reason for every single path of discovery and further consideration that I might try to offer them.

I wavered between giving this OP of yours the classy 'All-Winner' Star and just a nice solid Green 'I generally Agree' icon, but I went ahead and gave you the All-Star solute icon on this one because as I said, frankly, it very much reflects how I feel about the "current situation" and I think you're very right on with your evaluation here ... except maybe for that little tiny 'go ahead and put them on ignore' part of it you said at the end.

Otherwise, Classic Uber!

 

[Uber Genius]

Uber, you've soundly echoed many of the things I've felt over the years in talking to other people about the Christian Faith, particularly those who seem to say they want to know but then have a counter reason for every single path of discovery and further consideration that I might try to offer them.

I wavered between giving this OP of yours the classy 'All-Winner' Star and just a nice solid Green 'I generally Agree' icon, but I went ahead and gave you the All-Star solute icon on this one because as I said, frankly, it very much reflects how I feel about the "current situation" and I think you're very right on with your evaluation here ... except maybe for that little tiny 'go ahead and put them on ignore' part of it you said at the end.

Otherwise, Classic Uber!

High praise indeed.

Don't think that they have earned the ignore instantly. In some cases I have two years of engagement and over 100 replies!

So I am not talking about a person who just has a bad day and throws up all over your post as they are running out to grab the bus to work. I'm talking about dozens of such refusals to honestly engage. Where artifice and misrepresentation, fallacious reasoning and rhetorical flourish are their consistent stock and trade.

I am working on a thread that may interest you especially.

 

[Ophiolite]

It seems that my points above are so universal as to be completely uncontroversial.

I don't know whether you mean the points in the post the quote is from, the points in the OP, or all your points in the thread. Just as a point of information for you, your points appear to be mainly, perhaps exclusively, undemonstrated assertions tinged with a complacent sense of implacable rightness. If you were aiming for something else then you missed on this occasion, at least as far as this reader is concerned.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

I have a series called "Tricks Theists Play," that identifies faulty arguments from theists. I also give atheists resources to improve their arguments for atheism such as improved arguments from hiddeness, evil and suffering, hell, or various incoherency arguments from the divine simplicity vs a trinitarian being or a timeless God being able to interact in time, etc.

Well that is interesting.

Is the problem circular reasoning on the part of theists? That the Bible says something and they feel that viscerally speaking, and keep spouting Bible verses rather than trying to build a case in some kind of coherent fashion?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

High praise indeed.

Don't think that they have earned the ignore instantly. In some cases I have two years of engagement and over 100 replies!

So I am not talking about a person who just has a bad day and throws up all over your post as they are running out to grab the bus to work. I'm talking about dozens of such refusals to honestly engage. Where artifice and misrepresentation, fallacious reasoning and rhetorical flourish are their consistent stock and trade.

I am working on a thread that may interest you especially.

Oh, enticing!

 

[public hermit]

I have a series called "Tricks Theists Play,"

Can you reproduce this for those of us who haven't seen it? I'm interested. I'm not trying to trick anyone, but sometimes we use arguments without noticing they're fallacious, or "tricky."

 

[Uber Genius]

Can you reproduce this for those of us who haven't seen it? I'm interested. I'm not trying to trick anyone, but sometimes we use arguments without noticing they're fallacious, or "tricky."

go to the search bar top right of CF page. Type "Tricks theists play" in the search field, then type "Uber Genius" in member field, then uncheck "this forum only" box, hit the "search" button and you should see a host of threads from a few years back.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

go to the search bar top right of CF page. Type "Tricks theists play" in the search field, then type "Uber Genius" in member field, then uncheck "this forum only" box, hit the "search" button and you should see a host of threads from a few years back.

... didn't you tell me you come from a more or less 'Reformed' background, Uber?

 

[Kenny'sID]

Don't Be Like Elvis!

You mean, Don't be cruel?

Is this thread brought to us by a non denominational Christian or non Christian?

 

[Uber Genius]

Is the problem circular reasoning on the part of theists? That the Bible says something and they feel that viscerally speaking, and keep spouting Bible verses rather than trying to build a case in some kind of coherent fashion?

Yes and no.

Circularity is a function of previous epistemic foundations. That is a fancy way of saying that we all have various levels of rational (logical arguments supporting our claim) and experiencial (life-experiences accessed introspectively through our memory that create a database of evidence for our claims) data support a particular view.

If we are engaging an audience whom is familiar with and accepts as true Christian theism, we don't need to go back and justify that foundation. Similarly, we could rely on Biblical justification if everyone in the room agreed that at bare minimum the intent of the original authors was to give an account of how God worked in their lives and secondly that God, while allowing them to write in a fashion common to the author's culture, also oversaw that true views were expressed by those authors rather than false ones.

But suppose one doesn't believe the Bible to be God's special revelation? We might have considerable work to do to change that view but wouldn't give a defense of Christian views based on the Bible.

Likewise theists shouldn't assume theism in their arguments. Arguing from certain philosophical truths and scientific truths that most atheists agree are true seems best.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause...

Out of nothing, nothing comes.

It is impossible that there exists and actually infinite number of regressive events.

The universe is fine-tuned for life

all above are generally agreed to by atheists and theist philosophers although not as frequently by the less educated on either side of the coin.

When Hume assumes naturalism in his Discourse on Human Understanding that is a perfect example of circular reasoning.

When we engage anyone I think we should start with the facts about the world that we agree are the case and then move to what best explains those facts.

 

[Uber Genius]

You mean, Don't be cruel?

I don't recall Elvis being cruel. But I didn't follow him. I mean don't be intellectually lazy. Do your own research. Engage the best arguments for and against the views your hold, not the worst, not the first one you find on Youtube that has adjectives like "Poned, Crushed, X Destroys Y, X Destroyed by a REAL scientist," and the like.