Topic: The King of the Hill argument

[lumberjohn]

As I thought was clear throughout all my posts, I do not propose acting as though it is stipulated that A is true and I don't think anyone else here does either.  My point has been that you must reach some agreement regarding A before you can productively move forward because it is such a critical issue.  I fully advocate a discussion of A and have provided my recommended approach for doing so. 

My understanding of what IJ is saying is that believers will never agree to A so you need to find a way to argue within a framework that they provide because that is the only way to reach them.  I disagree that believers won't agree to A and also that there is an alternate framework by which you would be able to persuade a believer to your side.  If I can coin a phrase here, A is the only way.

[uolj]

Sounds good, we'll see what he says.

I thought there would probably be a lot of agreement on the subject. Although I also don't think it ends there. I do think the "king of the hill" attitude he describes is pervasive in all debates and discussions where there is disagreement. I see it all the time in political topics. I think it's important to be aware that it is a natural human tendency so we can all do better at avoiding it.

Also, I think it's important to note the difference between arguing within an opponent's framework and arguing within a framework they accept. I don't agree that one should necessarily argue entirely within the other person's framework. I think instead we should find framework that is as complete as possible but still acceptable to both parties. In the case of A, the framework should be that whether A is true or not is an open question. Often I'll say that we should look at the question from the other person's point of view. I don't mean that we should accept their dubious assumptions, I just mean that we should understand that they don't always accept ours. That's the point I took from this thread.

Oh, and by the way, in that example A is actually the Bible.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Ah, my memory is that the last time I greeted you with courtesy you said you wouldn't piss on me if I was on fire.  But pleasantries are not really part of your charm.

Snide attempts at appearing endlessly forgiving and tolerant are not charming either.  Reminds me of something.  Can't quite put my finger...
Christians.  Yes, you remind me of those Christians pretending to love everyone all day, everyday on the TV, talking out the sides of their mouths at every slimy platitude.
I try to treat every person’s new posts as independent opportunities to shine or to shit on the rug, and entered this thread in exactly that spirit.  You brought past correspondence up, and with that history in mind, I stand by my intention to withhold piss should it every come to pass that you are aflame.  No piss for you!

The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground.  Know their arguments, and be able to counter them. 

Why?  Positive assertion requires evidence.  What you have provided so far doesn’t amount to much other than special pleading. Given that many discussions with theists will turn to the existence of their deity, why should the null hypothesis not be a common starting point?  Existence is binary.  Something either exists or does not.  Starting from anywhere other than a null position is dishonest.

I know.  Once you have won the argument once, you want others to recognize your authority.  It is not that I don't recognize the high ground, just that I think asserting it is not an effective form of engagement. 

It’s not a matter of wanting authority or wanting authority recognised.  It’s about assessing ideas by means which actually can lead to reliable conclusions.  I don’t care how many times the argument has to be made, so long as the goal posts aren’t shifted, as you are attempting to do. 

Excuse me, but are you suggesting that a detailed knowledge of your opponents point of view is a weakness? 

Pfft.  Splugh.  Straw, straw, everywhere.  Not even high quality straw.  Smells of piss.  Have you been taking out fire insurance?
No.  Knowledge is not a weakness, but neither is detailed knowledge of a theology necessary to dispute the validity of the truth claims at the core of that theology, as you seem to be asserting.   

Shibboleth has previously suggested that to dispute a claim of a faith you have to do so from within the framework of that faith, and I didn't find it convincing when he served this idea up either. 

... and you follow this with what is essentially an argument from personal opinion. You accuse me- incorrectly- of saying I said you were wrong because you were wrong and now just a few paragraphs later you are actually making that argument for yourself.  One of the lovable things about you as an adversary is your absolute lack of any sense of irony.

No.  I’m saying that in addition to being logically flawed, your idea is not new and that nothing has happened since my first encounter with it to change my mind on its validity.

Do you accept that pointing out that the burden of evidence lies with the party making positive claims is valid in dealing with homeopaths and psychics?  How are the delusions of these people distinct from religious beliefs?  How would your approach apply in conversation with someone who refuses to vaccinate their children because they think the government is keeping us all ill deliberately and using the needles to inject sub-dermal mind control microchips?

Those are positive claims with testable implications.  Some claims of the religious are also positive claims and can be addressed.  The existence of God is not one of them.  Individual religions can be taken down, but sorry to say you actually have to know something about them. 

Why?  If someone says “Fellatio is wrong because my deity said so, so don’t suck cock,” they are making a claim about truth which I can dispute simply by asking for evidence that their deity exists, said what they claim it said, and can impose negative consequences for ignoring its edicts.  Detailed knowledge of the history of their religion might be very interesting, but it isn’t needed to defend the actions of anyone who wants to suck a willing cock.  If they can't get out of the starting blocks regarding the existence of the deity in question, how is knowing more about their religion of any merit beyond cultural interest?

Throughout our many interchanges your desire to find a shortcut to defeating others beliefs has been manifest, as has your ignorance about the details of the beliefs you dismiss.  But you can't challenge me to make an argument against religion and then say that the argument included too many things you didn't know.  That is pure angry silliness. 

What’s wrong with shortcuts?  Science is great at finding shortcuts, allowing us to make predictions and to plan ahead without resorting to trial and error in every aspect of our lives.  Is science bad because it seeks shortcuts?  Shortcuts save time and energy, so I don’t see my attempts to find the shortest route to my goals as the negative you are trying to portray it as. 
You are the one asserting that detailed knowledge of a faith is needed to dispute that faith and you have not brought anything to the table to convince me that that is the case.  I might be ignorant of a lot of things, but you haven’t shown that is innately bad or that it excludes me from disputing theistic claims placed before me. 

You’re back to your bullying ways, I see: 1) Make unevidenced statement; 2) Use negative adjectives and nouns to put down anyone who disagrees with unevidenced statement; 3) Prophet

The measure of an argument is its effectiveness, not its ultimate correctness.  I agree with the anti-religious conclusion, but trying to assert the non-existence of God with the null hypothesis is a clever trick, not a real argument.  The place where religious belief goes wrong is when it steps off the null point into some sort of theological assertion.  Countering those beliefs takes knowledge, not attitude.

Well, if it’s effectiveness you want, my approach has helped prevent theists*, both online and in the pulpit, from perpetuating incorrect and damaging claims against atheists.  Wanna see?
What has your approach achieved?
Got any evidence of it in action?


* Very much a work in progress, as there are lots of theists about, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and if everyone did a little, no-one would have to do a lot and other true aphorisms.

[lumberjohn]

Oh, and by the way, in that example A is actually the Bible.

Then I retract my catch phrase. 

[jomike]

I do think that "non-belief" is a species of belief, albeit one without form or dogma.

Yes, it's clear that's what you think.  A lot of theologians argue similarly, but it's simply wrong:

But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.

Those who argue that the default position should be to assume the non-existence of gods, and orbiting teapots and garden faeries and the million other things conjured by human imagination, are not making a "positive statement that must be defended."

[IrishJazz]

The original issue for discussion in this thread was whether it was a persuasive strategy to employ what IrishJazz defined as the “king of the hill” strategy – taking the position that the materialist/atheist worldview is correct and requiring your opponent to demonstrate otherwise.  As I’ve previously pointed out, I’m not aware of anyone that takes this strategy.  Furthermore, no one in this thread has argued that such a strategy would be persuasive.  So IJ continues to beat a dead horse and flog a strawman when he brings this up.

You misunderstand.  The "king of the hill" trope is that- in any argument- the burden of proof is on the opponent.  In the religious sense, this means that the believer must first prove that God exists.  The basis for this is the null hypothesis.  My position is not that this is totally incorrect- but that it is ineffective.  Faith is by definition not a rational reason for belief. 

A new issue has arisen, however, which is IJ’s argument that skeptics should argue within the framework of their religious opponents rather than the “evidentiary” framework espoused by skeptics.  For this argument to have merit, two things must be assumed.  First, that there is a consistent framework of the religious, apart from an evidentiary one, that allows for honest debate.  This I do not believe.

Again incorrect.  I was merely responding to WLB's challenge to counter religious beliefs without resorting to the null hypothesis.  Many religious claims are inherently both unprovable and un-disprovable.  You can't prove Jesus didn't walk on water because it was physically impossible, physical impossibility is the whole point of the story.  Your use of "honest debate" is disingenuous.

If IJ believes there to be such framework, I challenge him to provide us the rules.  He can’t do it because there are none.  Those who reject the evidentiary framework used in science, law, etc. never offer any consistent framework to replace it.  They simply immunize their position from any opposing argument by either changing the rules and moving the goal lines constantly or simply stating that nothing can change their mind.  In either case, there is no point in continuing the argument because there is no progress to be made.  This approach will, therefore never be successful.  Attempting to obtain an agreement on the application of an evidentiary framework, however, at least has a possibility of success.

Again a mischaracterization.  Criticism of specific religious claims are possible, but while religions contain belief systems, they are based on revelation not on a rational process of proof. 

The second assumption is that the religious do not and will not subscribe to an evidentiary framework.  Again, I find this unwarranted with respect to the vast majority of the religious that fully subscribe to such a framework in almost all aspects of their lives such as determining which medicines to give their children.  The problem is not that they see no merit in such a framework, but that they are unwilling to apply it consistently to their own religious beliefs (or other beliefs in which they are emotionally invested).  As I’ve previously explained, I think the best approach in those case is to demonstrate the inconsistency since it pits the believer against themselves rather than you.

This again misses the mark.  My argument is constrained to the starting assumption.  If someone believes there is more to existence than what can rationally be proved, demanding rational proof is as the starting point is not going to get you anywhere.  This belief does not mean that they are not going to pay attention to science, just that they are not going to accept science as the ultimate answer.  You can call that inconsistency all day.  See where it gets you.

There are no successful religious debaters other than those that accept the evidentiary framework. William Lane Craig, for instance, accepts that framework but claims that he can prove the existence of God within it.  It’s hard to imagine any debater making any ground without accepting such a framework.

A bit of an argument from personal incredulity, no? 

UOLJ states that we cannot know what is correct with certainty.  That is only true if you mean absolute certainty, but no one expects that.  Science can demonstrate many things with such a high degree of certainty that it would be virtually insane to make any significant decision based on a contrary belief.  For instance, we cannot say with absolute certainty that gravity will cause us to fall if we step off a building.  But who among us would actually take that step and how would we feel about someone that did?  The point is that in a great many areas we can demonstrate certainty for all practical purposes, and what allows us to do so in those cases is science rather than religion.  Though not perfect, it is the closest thing to an objective source of truth that we have.

It is a common argument among the religious to claim that because science cannot prove anything with absolute certainty, it is equivalent to religion.  This appears to be the position that several on this forum have taken.  Most, however, will recognize this as a simple false dichotomy.  Just because science isn’t perfect doesn’t mean it isn’t better.  And it clearly is much, much better.

I agree with you that science is the only way that we can confidently know something.  But knowledge is not belief.  Many intelligent people accept both science and religion. If you want to debate with them, knowing you are right is not enough. 

There are so many ways to establish that it is better that it just seems crazy to me to, as busker says, to cede the “hard won high ground” and attempt to engage the believer within a framework that guarantees your failure before you even begin the discussion.

You lost me here.  Are you saying that you need your hill to win the argument?  That the internal inconsistencies of religious belief are not enough to serve as a basis for criticism?  That a knowledge of history and theology are beyond your capability to master.  This may be true, but it is nothing to be proud of.

[IrishJazz]

[Snide attempts at appearing endlessly forgiving and tolerant are not charming either.  Reminds me of something.  Can't quite put my finger...
Christians.  Yes, you remind me of those Christians pretending to love everyone all day, everyday on the TV, talking out the sides of their mouths at every slimy platitude.

You are constant as the northern star, as Joni Mitchell once said.  Constantly in the darkness.

Why?  Positive assertion requires evidence.  What you have provided so far doesn’t amount to much other than special pleading. Given that many discussions with theists will turn to the existence of their deity, why should the null hypothesis not be a common starting point?  Existence is binary.  Something either exists or does not.  Starting from anywhere other than a null position is dishonest.

Because the null hypothesis starts with the non-existence of the unprovable.  The problem is that you will not accept faith as the basis for their belief.  Unfortunately it is the basis for their belief, and it is impervious to logic.  The discussion is over at the start.  Kudos if you can get the believer to agree with it, but it is the end point of the discussion not the beginning. 

It’s not a matter of wanting authority or wanting authority recognised.  It’s about assessing ideas by means which actually can lead to reliable conclusions.  I don’t care how many times the argument has to be made, so long as the goal posts aren’t shifted, as you are attempting to do. 

I am not shifting the goal posts, and I totally agree that faith does not lead to reliable conclusions.  This means that you are arguing at cross-purposes to the other side.  You may think that NOMA is invalid (I view it more as reality and imagination) but it is a fair description of the arguments that pass in the night.

Pfft.  Splugh.  Straw, straw, everywhere.  Not even high quality straw.  Smells of piss.  Have you been taking out fire insurance?  No.  Knowledge is not a weakness, but neither is detailed knowledge of a theology necessary to dispute the validity of the truth claims at the core of that theology, as you seem to be asserting.   

Having seen your video, I can imagine your huffing, spitting delivery of the above.  You seem incapable of doing anything without a bit of the old ad hom thrown in.  I was responding to your challenge to take apart religion without resort to the king of the hill approach. 

No.  I’m saying that in addition to being logically flawed, your idea is not new and that nothing has happened since my first encounter with it to change my mind on its validity.

So you are going to double down on the argument from personal incredulity? Or is this triple down.  I lose track.

Why?  If someone says “Fellatio is wrong because my deity said so, so don’t suck cock,” they are making a claim about truth which I can dispute simply by asking for evidence that their deity exists, said what they claim it said, and can impose negative consequences for ignoring its edicts.  Detailed knowledge of the history of their religion might be very interesting, but it isn’t needed to defend the actions of anyone who wants to suck a willing cock.  If they can't get out of the starting blocks regarding the existence of the deity in question, how is knowing more about their religion of any merit beyond cultural interest?

I don't care what their god thinks about fellatio.  Is it illegal down under?  It is certainly legal here.  There are laws in the US that are based on public morality, but the ones that deal with sexual behavior between consenting adults have been overturned by the Supreme Court.  I have no idea why you are bringing this up.  There is no acceptable religious argument for legal consequences in this country, I am sure there are in other places.  I am opposed to them, but disproving their religious beliefs is not the tactic used to defeat them. 

What’s wrong with shortcuts?  Science is great at finding shortcuts, allowing us to make predictions and to plan ahead without resorting to trial and error in every aspect of our lives.  Is science bad because it seeks shortcuts?  Shortcuts save time and energy, so I don’t see my attempts to find the shortest route to my goals as the negative you are trying to portray it as. 
You are the one asserting that detailed knowledge of a faith is needed to dispute that faith and you have not brought anything to the table to convince me that that is the case.  I might be ignorant of a lot of things, but you haven’t shown that is innately bad or that it excludes me from disputing theistic claims placed before me. 

I am asserting that knowledge of a faith is useful if you want to argue with the believers.  I have no doubt that you can combat the benighted, I doubt that you can engage with them.  Or that you would want to.  We learn about the things that interest us.  The history of religion obviously does not interest you, beyond a passing knowledge of the really bad bits.

You’re back to your bullying ways, I see: 1) Make unevidenced statement; 2) Use negative adjectives and nouns to put down anyone who disagrees with unevidenced statement; 3) Prophet

If I may repeat an earlier observation... People who call other people bullies are admitting their own weakness.  Allow me to suggest some more reasonable insults for you to use:  blowhard, pompous, high-handed, pretentious.  Credit me when you do.  WTF do you mean by "Prophet?"  Sometimes, Busker, you amaze me.

Well, if it’s effectiveness you want, my approach has helped prevent theists*, both online and in the pulpit, from perpetuating incorrect and damaging claims against atheists.  Wanna see?
What has your approach achieved?
Got any evidence of it in action?


* Very much a work in progress, as there are lots of theists about, but the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, and if everyone did a little, no-one would have to do a lot and other true aphorisms.

Sure Busker.  I would love to see the evidence that you have improved the image of atheists.  Good for you if you are having a positive impact. 

I am not making any such claims, I just stop by here from time to time for an interesting intellectual tussle.  My "doing a little" is typically one-on-one, and my business concerns make is unwise to play to prominent a role in controversial subjects.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Because the null hypothesis starts with the non-existence of the unprovable.  The problem is that you will not accept faith as the basis for their belief.  Unfortunately it is the basis for their belief, and it is impervious to logic.  The discussion is over at the start.  Kudos if you can get the believer to agree with it, but it is the end point of the discussion not the beginning. 

The null position starts with nothing, not denial of anything.  It establishes a level playing field in which any idea can gain traction if it can be supported, and in which baseless ideas will sit and spin their wheels.  If some theist brings an idea with great support, they will get traction, as will a homeopath with evidence that water has a memory. 
You have used language that makes it sound as though an idea has to work uphill to gain credence, when what the null position and the call for evidence does is creates a fair framework in which ideas can be considered.  A linguistic ploy well played, but placing the burden of evidence on the party making the positive claim is king of the investigative hill because it works, not because ideas have an uphill battle getting accepted.

You may think that NOMA is invalid (I view it more as reality and imagination)

What is that mean?

Having seen your video, I can imagine your huffing, spitting delivery of the above.  You seem incapable of doing anything without a bit of the old ad hom thrown in.  I was responding to your challenge to take apart religion without resort to the king of the hill approach.

If I were resorting to ad hom, I would state that you are wrong because you are a nasty piece of work.  Instead, I explain why I think you are wrong, and add that I think you are a nasty piece of work, too.  It is unnecessary, but I don’t want you to accidentally think that I enjoy communicating with you or that we are all mates at the end of the day. 

No.  I’m saying that in addition to being logically flawed, your idea is not new and that nothing has happened since my first encounter with it to change my mind on its validity.

So you are going to double down on the argument from personal incredulity? Or is this triple down.  I lose track.

No.  I explained why I think you’re incorrect, then explained why I referred to a previous case in which the idea was shown to be incorrect, too.  Then I had to explain why I am not arguing a case from personal incredulity.  Please stop grasping at straws.  You clearly have an ample supply already.

Why?  If someone says “Fellatio is wrong because my deity said so, so don’t suck cock,” they are making a claim about truth which I can dispute simply by asking for evidence that their deity exists, said what they claim it said, and can impose negative consequences for ignoring its edicts.  Detailed knowledge of the history of their religion might be very interesting, but it isn’t needed to defend the actions of anyone who wants to suck a willing cock.  If they can't get out of the starting blocks regarding the existence of the deity in question, how is knowing more about their religion of any merit beyond cultural interest?

I don't care what their god thinks about fellatio.  Is it illegal down under?  It is certainly legal here.  There are laws in the US that are based on public morality, but the ones that deal with sexual behavior between consenting adults have been overturned by the Supreme Court.  I have no idea why you are bringing this up.  There is no acceptable religious argument for legal consequences in this country, I am sure there are in other places.  I am opposed to them, but disproving their religious beliefs is not the tactic used to defeat them. 

Insert alleged sin of your choice.  The example will work for any religiously mandated proscription.
I suspect fellatio doesn’t come in for much attention from religious nay sayers because it is popular.  You’ve given my my next query for Christian Forums.   

I am asserting that knowledge of a faith is useful if you want to argue with the believers.  I have no doubt that you can combat the benighted, I doubt that you can engage with them.  Or that you would want to.  We learn about the things that interest us.  The history of religion obviously does not interest you, beyond a passing knowledge of the really bad bits.

Why should I engage them beyond getting them to leave me alone?  Do I have a right to engage them beyond where their claims overlap with my life?  Again, what’s wrong with shortcuts? 

You’re back to your bullying ways, I see: 1) Make unevidenced statement; 2) Use negative adjectives and nouns to put down anyone who disagrees with unevidenced statement; 3) Prophet

If I may repeat an earlier observation... People who call other people bullies are admitting their own weakness.  Allow me to suggest some more reasonable insults for you to use:  blowhard, pompous, high-handed, pretentious.  Credit me when you do.  WTF do you mean by "Prophet?"  Sometimes, Busker, you amaze me.

You can repeat it endlessly, but that won’t make it any more true than the first time we discussed this.  Bullies are not invisible to everyone other than weak people.  Nice bullying tactic, though, trying to make my statement that I think you are a bully into a weapon. 

Sure Busker.  I would love to see the evidence that you have improved the image of atheists.  Good for you if you are having a positive impact. 

I didn’t claim to have improved the image of atheists.  I claimed to have shut down particular attempts to vilify them.  Clearly the straw shortage is not affecting you. http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Can-there-be-Good-without-God-Team-Debate-at-Flinders-University-5343492

I am not making any such claims, I just stop by here from time to time for an interesting intellectual tussle.  My "doing a little" is typically one-on-one, and my business concerns make is unwise to play to prominent a role in controversial subjects.

Bullshit.  You claim yours is the superior method.  Either show evidence or stop making that claim.  If you have no history of achievement to show why your method is great, and no ambition to employ either method beyond your own immediate acquaintances, what gives you credibility in trying to tell other people how to go about their business? 

[IrishJazz]

The null position starts with nothing, not denial of anything.  It establishes a level playing field in which any idea can gain traction if it can be supported, and in which baseless ideas will sit and spin their wheels.  If some theist brings an idea with great support, they will get traction, as will a homeopath with evidence that water has a memory. 

You have used language that makes it sound as though an idea has to work uphill to gain credence, when what the null position and the call for evidence does is creates a fair framework in which ideas can be considered.  A linguistic ploy well played, but placing the burden of evidence on the party making the positive claim is king of the investigative hill because it works, not because ideas have an uphill battle getting accepted.

Faith does not require evidence, so calling for evidence to justify faith is not likely to be successful.  My point is the real argument is getting people to the point that they accept the null hypothesis as the basis for judging faith beliefs.  The "king of the hill" argument starts there.

What is that mean?

NOMA essentially carves out an authority for science separate from religion.  It is basically "God of the Gaps," with the gaps being the realm of ignorance and imagination.  From a practical standpoint, if the religious cede authority to science where science is present, I have no problem with it. 

Having seen your video, I can imagine your huffing, spitting delivery of the above.  You seem incapable of doing anything without a bit of the old ad hom thrown in.  I was responding to your challenge to take apart religion without resort to the king of the hill approach.

If I were resorting to ad hom, I would state that you are wrong because you are a nasty piece of work.  Instead, I explain why I think you are wrong, and add that I think you are a nasty piece of work, too.  It is unnecessary, but I don’t want you to accidentally think that I enjoy communicating with you or that we are all mates at the end of the day. 

Well, I defer to your judgement on nastiness, a subject with which you have apparently intimate knowledge.  It is just that whatever valid points you seem to be making are well-hidden in your screeds.  Perhaps, as we are not all mates at the end of the day, it would make sense to deliver your ideas unadorned with vitriol. 

No.  I explained why I think you’re incorrect, then explained why I referred to a previous case in which the idea was shown to be incorrect, too.  Then I had to explain why I am not arguing a case from personal incredulity.  Please stop grasping at straws.  You clearly have an ample supply already.

You are referring, apparently, to a past interchange where you were rationally arguing without sputtering, fallacy-challenged, semi-coherence.  I would appreciate it if you could be more precise, I can't remember that happening.

Insert alleged sin of your choice.  The example will work for any religiously mandated proscription. I suspect fellatio doesn’t come in for much attention from religious nay sayers because it is popular.  You’ve given my my next query for Christian Forums. 

I thought it was just your attempt to inject some spicy language into the debate.  Again, we don't have a lot of religiously mandated proscriptions in the US.  Gay Marriage seems to be on the rise, but that it allowing for the social recognition of a status, not a proscription of the behavior being recognized.  There are still some sexual behaviors that are forbidden, but mostly those are inter-species, age or commerce based.

Why should I engage them beyond getting them to leave me alone?  Do I have a right to engage them beyond where their claims overlap with my life?  Again, what’s wrong with shortcuts? 

If it works for you, have at it.  I can't see spending as much time on the subject as you do without increasing the level of knowledge that you have about what you are opposing.  Or how that differs from the certainty of the believer.  But again, if you are happy in your ignorance, far be it from me to strip you of it.

You can repeat it endlessly, but that won’t make it any more true than the first time we discussed this.  Bullies are not invisible to everyone other than weak people.  Nice bullying tactic, though, trying to make my statement that I think you are a bully into a weapon. 

Who else is here Busker?  Who is being bullied?  I don't regard you as particularly weak, but I do regard your rhetoric as wanting.  My criticism is of your word choice.  And how, in my suggestion of a host of other negative terms you could use, was I picking on you.  (By the way, you can't say that you were not being bullied in sentence 1 and then claim you were in sentence 2.)

I didn’t claim to have improved the image of atheists.  I claimed to have shut down particular attempts to vilify them.  Clearly the straw shortage is not affecting you. http://rfforum.websitetoolbox.com/post/Can-there-be-Good-without-God-Team-Debate-at-Flinders-University-5343492

I have seen your tape.  And I agree, you did not improve the image of atheists. 

Bullshit.  You claim yours is the superior method.  Either show evidence or stop making that claim.  If you have no history of achievement to show why your method is great, and no ambition to employ either method beyond your own immediate acquaintances, what gives you credibility in trying to tell other people how to go about their business?

You don't seem to understand what a web forum is.  I suggested that a particular form of argument is wanting no to tell people not to use it but to start a discussion about it.  I am interested in defending my opinion, not enforcing it.  I didn't come here for validation, but for argument. 

You have no obligation to agree with me, or even like me, Busker.  (Although you have, alas, no control over my fondness for you.)  Anger makes you seem defensive, then again the King of the Hill argument is all about defense.   

[worldslaziestbusker]

The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground.  Know their arguments, and be able to counter them.  With fundamentalists, if you can get them to call you Satan, their anti-god of intelligent trickery- without raising your voice or calling them stupid or their superstition evil, then you are on the right track

I suggested that a particular form of argument is wanting no to tell people not to use it but to start a discussion about it.  I am interested in defending my opinion, not enforcing it.  I didn't come here for validation, but for argument.  .

I'm sorry.  I misinterpreted the first quoted paragraph as indicative of an intention to tell people when they are on the right track.  I'm pleased to see my interpretation was incorrect and that you weren't presuming to assert your approach to dialogue regarding religious claims was superior to that applied by others, or by yourself when dealing with claims about homeopathy.

Re NOMA: imagination is important to scientists, who need to risk being wrong by imagining possible explanations.  It is not solely the realm of theists and should not be put forward as their domain.  For NOMA to work as an idea, theists would have to acknowledge that their beliefs have no place in science classes or the development and testing of hypotheses.  The continuing fight to keep theists out of these areas suggests that they are unwilling to hold up their end of Gould's proposed model.

Fellatio is an interesting topic, as it can be acceptable to some people so long as it's between a man and a woman, and unacceptable if it's between two men.  The upshot of the situation is the same, but their reaction to that upshot can be heavily influenced by religious teachings: one cock good, two cocks bad.  Even the Dalai Lama has spoken out against sex that doesn't involve one penis and one vagina for no reason supported by evidence, it's just him opining in a book.

[IrishJazz]

The challenge is to meet the believer on their own ground.  Know their arguments, and be able to counter them.  With fundamentalists, if you can get them to call you Satan, their anti-god of intelligent trickery- without raising your voice or calling them stupid or their superstition evil, then you are on the right track

I suggested that a particular form of argument is wanting no to tell people not to use it but to start a discussion about it.  I am interested in defending my opinion, not enforcing it.  I didn't come here for validation, but for argument.  .

I'm sorry.  I misinterpreted the first quoted paragraph as indicative of an intention to tell people when they are on the right track.  I'm pleased to see my interpretation was incorrect and that you weren't presuming to assert your approach to dialogue regarding religious claims was superior to that applied by others, or by yourself when dealing with claims about homeopathy.

It is certainly not uniquely superior.  There is an alternate, logical path that leads to getting them to accept the null hypothesis.  My point is to start at the bottom of the hill, not the top.  In the case of homeopathy, again the idea is not simply to challenge them to prove it works but to take apart the assumptions.  Why should water remember contact with a substance?  If this is true, why does it not remember the aeons of contact with other substances?  I don't thing assertion of superiority is an effective approach in any case.

But I recognize, as you surely do, that in most cases no argument works on a true believer.  That is why it is a challenge, to fight the good fight, not a mission.  Although I do enjoy being called Satan for being able to trespass with knowledge into areas many of them claim to believe but have insufficiently mastered.  Then again, your combativeness may be a short cut to the same goal.

Re NOMA: imagination is important to scientists, who need to risk being wrong by imagining possible explanations.  It is not solely the realm of theists and should not be put forward as their domain.  For NOMA to work as an idea, theists would have to acknowledge that their beliefs have no place in science classes or the development and testing of hypotheses.  The continuing fight to keep theists out of these areas suggests that they are unwilling to hold up their end of Gould's proposed model.

I meant pure imagination  My understanding of NOMA was not that the methods were entirely unique, but that the authority was differentiated.  Science talks about the world as it exists.  Religion deals with the spiritual nature of mankind.  Since I don't believe in the spiritual nature of mankind, except as imaginary, I referred to it as "imagination."  This is not intended to shut off scientists from creativity.

Fellatio is an interesting topic, as it can be acceptable to some people so long as it's between a man and a woman, and unacceptable if it's between two men.  The upshot of the situation is the same, but their reaction to that upshot can be heavily influenced by religious teachings: one cock good, two cocks bad.  Even the Dalai Lama has spoken out against sex that doesn't involve one penis and one vagina for no reason supported by evidence, it's just him opining in a book.

It is like people who think strawberries taste bitter- which is, by the way, a genetically-determined portion of the population- condemning the eating of strawberries by other.  The Dalai Lama is the heir of one of the most benighted religious dictatorships on earth, chosen by his childhood luck in choosing relics.  The man has become a saint by being deposed by the Communists.  The hope is in the young, the homophobes are aging and a new era will dawn when they are sufficiently reduced in number. 

[worldslaziestbusker]

It is certainly not uniquely superior.  There is an alternate, logical path that leads to getting them to accept the null hypothesis.  My point is to start at the bottom of the hill, not the top.  In the case of homeopathy, again the idea is not simply to challenge them to prove it works but to take apart the assumptions.  Why should water remember contact with a substance?  If this is true, why does it not remember the aeons of contact with other substances?  I don't thing assertion of superiority is an effective approach in any case.

I think it is decidedly inferior, and that your misrepresentation of the null position is its great flaw.  The gradient is not there simply because it is perceived to be there based on previous wholesale acceptance of a particular belief across entire societies.  Again, starting from a null position offers a fair go to any idea, and if someone comes up with compelling evidence that a god exists or that water has a memory, I will have to accept that evidence whether I like it or not. 

But I recognize, as you surely do, that in most cases no argument works on a true believer.

I don't care what they truly believe.  I care that they recognise that their beliefs don't trump my rights.  If they can't get that through reasoned discourse and continue to try to impose their beliefs on me/society, they will face legal consequences, so long as the legal system recognises the value of evidence.  The level playing field is open to all comers.  Getting butt hurt about not getting traction is neither here nor there to me. 

That is why it is a challenge, to fight the good fight, not a mission.  Although I do enjoy being called Satan for being able to trespass with knowledge into areas many of them claim to believe but have insufficiently mastered. 

How is getting to the point that you get called Satan useful?  Does this fit with the approach you outlined earlier?  No-one has ever called me Satan to my face.

Then again, your combativeness may be a short cut to the same goal.

Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the utility of short-cuts?

I meant pure imagination  My understanding of NOMA was not that the methods were entirely unique, but that the authority was differentiated.  Science talks about the world as it exists.  Religion deals with the spiritual nature of mankind.  Since I don't believe in the spiritual nature of mankind, except as imaginary, I referred to it as "imagination."  This is not intended to shut off scientists from creativity.

Where is the NOMA boundary?  How will scientists recognise when they are butting up against the limit of allowable creativity and imagination?  Will it be as in the maritime and aviation industries, in that near transgressions get reported and discussed to help prevent future problems?  What penalties would be incurred if a scientist wrote a work of fiction in their spare time?

It is like people who think strawberries taste bitter- which is, by the way, a genetically-determined portion of the population- condemning the eating of strawberries by other.  The Dalai Lama is the heir of one of the most benighted religious dictatorships on earth, chosen by his childhood luck in choosing relics.  The man has become a saint by being deposed by the Communists.  The hope is in the young, the homophobes are aging and a new era will dawn when they are sufficiently reduced in number.

Who is telling whom not to eat strawberries because it is morally incorrect?  Your analogy is flawed because potatoe. 
While I am ignorant of much, that annexation of Tibet by China and the deposing of the ruling monk class resulted in a nett increase in the enfranchisement of Tibetans is not news to me. 

Almost forgot, the bullying.  Your success in bullying does not determine whether or not you are a bully.  Intent and actions are sufficient.  I think you resort to using negative nouns and adjectives and apply your considerable skill as a rhetorist in attempts to brow beat your interlocutors when reason and evidence are not supporting your case.  I think you try to bully me.  That you fail does not preclude you from the set of people who are bullies.

[IrishJazz]

I think it is decidedly inferior, and that your misrepresentation of the null position is its great flaw.  The gradient is not there simply because it is perceived to be there based on previous wholesale acceptance of a particular belief across entire societies.  Again, starting from a null position offers a fair go to any idea, and if someone comes up with compelling evidence that a god exists or that water has a memory, I will have to accept that evidence whether I like it or not. 

You will have to explain to me why insisting someone who bases their belief on faith must change that to a belief based on evidence as a precondition to argument is offering them a fair go.  I agree that the existence of gods is theoretically provable, but practically unprovable- hence the resort to faith. Ultimately getting them to accept the null hypothesis may be a winning strategy, but I still see it as the goal, not the starting point.

I don't care what they truly believe.  I care that they recognise that their beliefs don't trump my rights.  If they can't get that through reasoned discourse and continue to try to impose their beliefs on me/society, they will face legal consequences, so long as the legal system recognises the value of evidence.  The level playing field is open to all comers.  Getting butt hurt about not getting traction is neither here nor there to me. 

If you don't want to influence beliefs, why argue?   I agree with you about excluding irrational beliefs from public policy, etc.  I also think that freedom of belief extends to those who believe stupid things; even the most rational have no right to impose their beliefs on others (although they are free to use logic and evidence to critique.)  I am not clear on why this makes the king of the hill argument more compelling. 

How is getting to the point that you get called Satan useful?  Does this fit with the approach you outlined earlier?  No-one has ever called me Satan to my face.

Of course not.  There is a Bible quote about Satan quoting scripture to serve his purposes.  It only applies when you have some basic knowledge of the texts and the theology.  Using it is an admission that the points being made are apparently valid, but must be flawed because they diverge from the individual's belief.  It is about engagement on their own terms, Busker.   

Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the utility of short-cuts?

If the objective is to piss off the benighted, I think you do a fair job.  I just think you are arguing past them, just as they are arguing past you when they suggest that the cost of your reasoned beliefs is their irrational hell.

Where is the NOMA boundary?  How will scientists recognise when they are butting up against the limit of allowable creativity and imagination?  Will it be as in the maritime and aviation industries, in that near transgressions get reported and discussed to help prevent future problems?  What penalties would be incurred if a scientist wrote a work of fiction in their spare time?

In the "God of the Gaps" formulation of NOMA, the gaps are determined by science. Your formulation of it seems, frankly, completely wrong.  There are no fixed walls.   Hunting for God with science is like looking for the dark with a flashlight. 

Who is telling whom not to eat strawberries because it is morally incorrect?  Your analogy is flawed because potatoe. 
While I am ignorant of much, that annexation of Tibet by China and the deposing of the ruling monk class resulted in a nett increase in the enfranchisement of Tibetans is not news to me. 

Forgive me for asking, but do you drink and post?  It was a simile. 

The question in Tibet is not whether the replacement of a native despotism by a foreign one had a happy result, but whether the former regime is remembered as better than it was.  Hence the moral authority granted the Dalai Lama. But it is good to know that this has not escaped your ken. 

Almost forgot, the bullying.  Your success in bullying does not determine whether or not you are a bully.  Intent and actions are sufficient.  I think you resort to using negative nouns and adjectives and apply your considerable skill as a rhetorist in attempts to brow beat your interlocutors when reason and evidence are not supporting your case.  I think you try to bully me.  That you fail does not preclude you from the set of people who are bullies.

That I fail may be in part because I am not trying to bully you.  I know online bullying is possible for teenagers where Facebook posts are an adjunct of middle school life, but I am not really sure how that would work between consenting adults on a skeptical message board.  What you call browbeating, I call argument.  It is all well and good to get all hate-y and mad, and I can't resist tweaking you about it in a cheerful way, but I don't think that does any real harm. 

And I don't think  the meta-argument really impacts the main argument in any substantial way.  I guess you calling me a bully is an ad hom a bit like the believer calling me Satan.  It just encourages me.  Stop it.

[uolj]

I do think that "non-belief" is a species of belief, albeit one without form or dogma.

Yes, it's clear that's what you think.  A lot of theologians argue similarly, but it's simply wrong:

But when people say that the default position should be the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots and the supernatural- in the absence of specific claims- then they are the ones who are making a positive statement that must be defended.

Those who argue that the default position should be to assume the non-existence of gods, and orbiting teapots and garden faeries and the million other things conjured by human imagination, are not making a "positive statement that must be defended."

IrishJazz is obviously busy with Mr. Busker, so maybe you can explain why my explanation didn't change your question? Remember, the comment is not saying that "the assumption of the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots" must be defended, it is saying that the claim that "the assumption of the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots should be the default position" must be defended. Your arguments seem focused on the former, when I believe it is the latter that is what is being put forward.

[IrishJazz]

IrishJazz is obviously busy with Mr. Busker, so maybe you can explain why my explanation didn't change your question? Remember, the comment is not saying that "the assumption of the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots" must be defended, it is saying that the claim that "the assumption of the non-existence of gods orbiting teapots should be the default position" must be defended. Your arguments seem focused on the former, when I believe it is the latter that is what is being put forward.

In other words, start with no gods/teapots, and see if gods/teapots can be demonstrated by the evidence?  I totally agree with this as the scientific/rational empirical approach, but that is does not reflect the faith approach of the believer.  Miracles are miracles, after all, because of their impossibility.  The argument is not about the validity of the null hypothesis, it is about it's utility in this particular argument. 

I hold that it is a lazy form of argument as well, because it starts at the conclusion..."Let's assume no God exists."  That conclusion is not shared by the believer, who thinks- accurately- that science provides is an incomplete understanding of the totality of reality.  I also think it is not quite the killer starting point that you may think it is.  A well-informed religious person could ask how you account for the "fine-tuning" of the laws of physics that make life possible.   There are a number of perfectly reasonable secular/rational responses to this, the anthropic principal, the multiple universe hypothesis.  The truth is that we don't know. 

The possibility that it was set up by some powerful being is a highly arbitrary, evidence-free hypothesis.  Then again there is no evidence for other universes either, except for their utility in mathematics.  But once it is introduced as a possible explanation, then the burden is on you to justify its exclusion. 

The tricky thing about gods are once they get in the door, you can't throw them out.  Fortunately, like vampires, they have to be invited in.  Better to concentrate on the alleged implications of gods' existence than the fact of it.  Attack the claims of religion, not the unprovable/undisprovable assumptions.