Topic: The King of the Hill argument

[jomike]

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.

Asked and answered.  But what the hey, I'll assume the question is sincere and not merely argument for argument's sake.   IrishJazz stated:

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

which is fallacious. To assume the non-existence of something not in evidence is hardly to "make a positive statement that must be defended."  The notion that a presuppositionalist argument should get a free pass on this is special pleading, pure and simple.

[IrishJazz]

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

which is fallacious. To assume the non-existence of something not in evidence is hardly to "make a positive statement that must be defended."  The notion that a presuppositionalist argument should get a free pass on this is special pleading, pure and simple.

Hey... it might be wrong but it is not fallacious.  (For reference, see the definition of "special pleading" in the SGU resources section. Then you might want to delete the "pure and simple" from the above.)

The central problem is that the religious consider faith- and personal subjective experience- a reason for belief, and the scientific/materialist worldview- which I share- doesn't.  The positive statement is that the only scientific/materialist standards should apply.  Otherwise, the introduction of God is just a matter of assertion.

Again, I think the scientific/materialist approach is a perfectly valid endpoint of the argument.  I just don't think it is effective to start there.

[uolj]

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.

Asked and answered.  But what the hey, I'll assume the question is sincere and not merely argument for argument's sake.   

I can assure you that that question (and any other that I have) is sincere and not argument for argument's sake. Hell, I don't like argument for any sake. I'd much rather discuss and come to mutually understood positions (regardless of whether they are in agreement or not).

IrishJazz stated:

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

which is fallacious. To assume the non-existence of something not in evidence is hardly to "make a positive statement that must be defended."  The notion that a presuppositionalist argument should get a free pass on this is special pleading, pure and simple.

But here you're ignoring my response. I made a distinction between two different statements. Your argument seems to apply very well to one, but I don't believe that that's the one being made. Essentially, it seems to me your argument applies to an incorrect understanding of what was being said. So I'm trying to see if you can adjust your interpretation of IrishJazz's original comment, or acknowledge the distinction I made and show how your statement applies anyway.

[worldslaziestbusker]

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.

Because it is the same go on offer to anyone coming up with any claim.

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.

I would prefer not to argue, but as large numbers of theists want their beliefs taken into account in the lives of others, arguing is the short cut to the quiet life I seek.  Again, I don't care what they believe in their own time, so long as it don't try to annexe the time and resources of others.

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.

Thank you for the clarification.  I still don't see it as a goal with merit, as you have to discard the level playing field to get to that point.  That no-one has called me Satan to my face is, perhaps, because they know it wouldn't constitute an argument to me.  Why let them even try to use it in that manner on you?   

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.

Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the utility of short-cuts?
See what I did there?  You wrote past my question without answering it, so I asked it again in hope you might address it next 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. 

Without boundaries, in what way are we discussing non-overlapping magisteria.  Seems there might be scope for plenty of overlap unless the boundaries are mapped out.

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

Ah, yes.  I see now.  My point was entirely invalid because it was a simile and not an analogy.  What a difference a like makes.  So, your simile fails because potatoe.  Who is condemning the eating of strawberries in such a way that it would make your simile regarding religious strictures about morality valid?

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. 

And there was me thinking that you were adding irrelevant facts to make yourself look gnorant. 

That I fail may be in part because I am not trying to bully you.

That's a possibility, but the evidence does not support that hypothesis.  You browbeat your correspondents when all you need to do is provide an argument positing a possible mechanism for an effect or evidence of an effect to make your point. 

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.

Argument from incredulity.

What you call browbeating, I call argument.

Some tips on effective argument, from Christians, no less.  No mention of passive aggressive insults, goading your opponent for a rise or poisoning the well by bringing up past spats.  http://www.christianforums.com/t7425822/

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,

So in what way are you different to an asshole, cheerful or otherwise?

but I don't think that does any real harm. 

Argument from incredulity again.  A credible mechanism for harm exists.  That it doesn't harm me doesn't mean it doesn't harm the other people you point your bluster blunderbuss at.  In the same way that evidence of sexism keeping people away from the forum can only take the form of the absence of people from the forum, that your bullying keeps people from contributing would be a hard claim to find evidence for.  Any potential data points not kept at bay completely might be unwilling to step up and admit they feel cowed by you, as admitting to being a victim of bullying is very hard.  I don't think I can support the claim, but you already admitted to deliberately trying to get a rise out of me for no reason other than your entertainment, so perhaps I don't have to.  Anecdote conceding unethical motive negates the need for data.

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.

It would be ad hom if I stated that your bullying invalidated your arguments.  I have kept the two things separate.  Disputing your claim regarding the null position and stating that I think you are a bully are distinct.
 

[IrishJazz]

Because it is the same go on offer to anyone coming up with any claim.

So, then it is fair for the religious to demand proof of the non-existence of God in the Bible, as long as they are consistent.

I would prefer not to argue, but as large numbers of theists want their beliefs taken into account in the lives of others, arguing is the short cut to the quiet life I seek.  Again, I don't care what they believe in their own time, so long as it don't try to annexe the time and resources of others.

You spend a fair amount of time doing that which you prefer not to do.

Thank you for the clarification.  I still don't see it as a goal with merit, as you have to discard the level playing field to get to that point.  That no-one has called me Satan to my face is, perhaps, because they know it wouldn't constitute an argument to me.  Why let them even try to use it in that manner on you?

   

I don't mind people revealing their frustrations.

Is this a tacit acknowledgement of the utility of short-cuts?
See what I did there?  You wrote past my question without answering it, so I asked it again in hope you might address it next time.

The value of a short cut is the destination that you reach with it.  As I said, if the destination was to piss people off without engaging them in argument, well done.

Without boundaries, in what way are we discussing non-overlapping magisteria.  Seems there might be scope for plenty of overlap unless the boundaries are mapped out.

My point was the boundaries are fluid, not fixed.  And they are determined by science.  I believe this is what Gould said as well.  There were questions not answered, and unanswerable by science- the why not the how.  I don't think there is a why, but some people do.

Ah, yes.  I see now.  My point was entirely invalid because it was a simile and not an analogy.  What a difference a like makes.  So, your simile fails because potatoe.  Who is condemning the eating of strawberries in such a way that it would make your simile regarding religious strictures about morality valid?

People who don't like homosexual behavior condemn it.  I said that was like people who found strawberries distasteful condemning them.  Both are equally ridiculous.  You are amazingly literal in your interpretation.

And there was me thinking that you were adding irrelevant facts to make yourself look gnorant. 

You brought the Dalai Lama into the conversation with the implication that he was a moral authority.  I thought that established relevance.  Do you guys down under really spell potato with an e on the end?

That's a possibility, but the evidence does not support that hypothesis.  You browbeat your correspondents when all you need to do is provide an argument positing a possible mechanism for an effect or evidence of an effect to make your point.

I am sure that sentence means something.  How, exactly, am I browbeating you?  And given that you are wont to open a correspondence with expressions of dislike, why are your expectations of gentle treatment of your arguments so high?  I have said that I agree with your conclusions, just not the approach of essentially starting with them.

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.

Argument from incredulity.

It was meant as a sort of question.  How does bullying work on an online forum, especially when the bully is the polite one? 

Some tips on effective argument, from Christians, no less.  No mention of passive aggressive insults, goading your opponent for a rise or poisoning the well by bringing up past spats. 

Well, I do find your anger a bit silly and that no doubt shows through.  But, if I recall, when I greeted you in the past you responded with completely irrelevant anger carried over from past interchanges.  I don't dislike you, the fact that it makes you so irritable just makes me like you more.  I am, honestly, not the prisoner of your attitude toward me.  And I enjoy these interchanges, I don't want you to roll over on your back and wag your tail like a submissive puppy.  What you read as contempt is honest amusement. 

So in what way are you different to an asshole, cheerful or otherwise?

See, look how cute when you are when you are trying to be a bully.  I told you it was impossible.  Read that line above again and tell me that it works the way it is intended.  Jeez Busker, chill out.

Argument from incredulity again.  A credible mechanism for harm exists.  That it doesn't harm me doesn't mean it doesn't harm the other people you point your bluster blunderbuss at.  In the same way that evidence of sexism keeping people away from the forum can only take the form of the absence of people from the forum, that your bullying keeps people from contributing would be a hard claim to find evidence for.  Any potential data points not kept at bay completely might be unwilling to step up and admit they feel cowed by you, as admitting to being a victim of bullying is very hard.  I don't think I can support the claim, but you already admitted to deliberately trying to get a rise out of me for no reason other than your entertainment, so perhaps I don't have to.  Anecdote conceding unethical motive negates the need for data.

A simple statement of opinion is not an argument.  Your continuous misuse of logical fallacies is more a source of frustration than amusement. But well done with the 'bluster blunderbuss."  I may use it in the future, albeit combined into "blunderbluster" - a neologism for which you get more than half credit.

The thing about limiting things to words is that an argument either stands on its merits or it does not.  These words we type in stick around for years.  Are there people who feel intimidated by the letters that I peck out on the keyboard who leave, cowed, and never come back.  Like you, I have no evidence of that.  I have made some friends here, at least to the degree that you can with just text. I've connected with a few through Facebook.  But while I have had angry words thrown at me before, you are the only person yet to accuse me of bullying. 

And frankly I don't think I have done anything specifically to make you angry.  Once you start spewing sparks like a cheap firework, I admit I might have batted your furious self up into the air a few times.  But frankly, with your violent language and naked contempt, I always saw you more as the bully.  Bullies, in my opinion, are more often ineffectual on a level playing field. 

It would be ad hom if I stated that your bullying invalidated your arguments.  I have kept the two things separate.  Disputing your claim regarding the null position and stating that I think you are a bully are distinct.

And your argument for the null position was, if I recall, that it was "hard won" and offered "a fair go."  The second part I address, for the N-teenth time above.  As for the first, I suggest that it needs to be hard won every time.   For real, not by reference, and by you, for a change.

[worldslaziestbusker]

Because it is the same go on offer to anyone coming up with any claim.

So, then it is fair for the religious to demand proof of the non-existence of God in the Bible, as long as they are consistent.

If they expect other people to show evidence for their positions in theology, in business, and in court, I don't see that they can fault others for expecting the same of them.  One playing field.  No gradient. 

You spend a fair amount of time doing that which you prefer not to do.

The argument from don't you have better things to do than spend your time on the internet. 
Yes, I would rather be surfing but the swell, wind and daylight are inconstant, and there are fallacious arguments standing in the way of my enfranchisement, so while I have to wait out onshore winds and night time, I can take on my share of the bullshit.

The value of a short cut is the destination that you reach with it.  As I said, if the destination was to piss people off without engaging them in argument, well done.

The value of an endeavour is the destination.  The value of a short-cut is only whether or not it makes the destination easier to reach.  Do you acknowledge that you were incorrect to attempt to make an argument out of simple disdain for short cuts?

My point was the boundaries are fluid, not fixed.  And they are determined by science.  I believe this is what Gould said as well.  There were questions not answered, and unanswerable by science- the why not the how.  I don't think there is a why, but some people do.

Yes, I agree that the NOMA concept suffers from a lack of clear definition as well as a lack of willingness on the behalf of theists to respect scientific efforts to understand the world.

People who don't like homosexual behavior condemn it.  I said that was like people who found strawberries distasteful condemning them.  Both are equally ridiculous.  You are amazingly literal in your interpretation.

I didn't need a simile about strawberries to know that condemning fellatio is ridiculous. 

You brought the Dalai Lama into the conversation with the implication that he was a moral authority.

The Dalai Lama is an authority because people heed him.  The history of that authority was irrelevant to this situation.  As were strawberries and the fact that finding strawberries bitter is a genetically linked trait.

Do you guys down under really spell potato with an e on the end?

Yes. 

That's a possibility, but the evidence does not support that hypothesis.  You browbeat your correspondents when all you need to do is provide an argument positing a possible mechanism for an effect or evidence of an effect to make your point.

I am sure that sentence means something.  How, exactly, am I browbeating you?  And given that you are wont to open a correspondence with expressions of dislike, why are your expectations of gentle treatment of your arguments so high?

I have previously opened our correspondence with reminders of past encounters, but having found it unproductive, launched into this thread as if I'd never encountered you before.  You brought up the past because you, admittedly, enjoy riling me. 
My arguments aren't delicate flowers.  They don't need gentle treatment, but if you are going to dismantle them, you need to address their content, not my mood or my language. 

I have said that I agree with your conclusions, just not the approach of essentially starting with them.

I don't start with conclusions.  I start with premises and expect others to do the same.

It was meant as a sort of question.  How does bullying work on an online forum, especially when the bully is the polite one? 

Manners are not the measure of a person's ethical merit.  Anyone who tries to gain advantage over others through intimidation, whether physical or mental, well spoken or profane, is a bully. 

Well, I do find your anger a bit silly and that no doubt shows through.  But, if I recall, when I greeted you in the past you responded with completely irrelevant anger carried over from past interchanges. 

As mentioned earlier, I have learnt not to do this.  Can you?

  Jeez Busker, chill out.

When has anyone ever chilled out when told to do so by someone with whom they have been frustrated?  Passive aggressive attempt to appear concerned is passive aggressive.

A simple statement of opinion is not an argument.  Your continuous misuse of logical fallacies is more a source of frustration than amusement.

The fact that you don't believe something is not evidence against that thing.  The argument from incredulity cannot be used to assert that what you think is true.

The thing about limiting things to words is that an argument either stands on its merits or it does not.  These words we type in stick around for years.  Are there people who feel intimidated by the letters that I peck out on the keyboard who leave, cowed, and never come back.

We can't know, because if that is the case, they don't come back.  It is easy to measure the effect of discrimination against particular demographics.  Sexism in skeptical circles is well documented and the ratio of male to female online skeptics is evidence of that problem.  You are indiscriminate in your blustering, so identifying gaps in the ranks of forum posters due to your influence would be harder to quantify. 

   But while I have had angry words thrown at me before, you are the only person yet to accuse me of bullying. 

That does not mean that you are not a bully. 

And frankly I don't think I have done anything specifically to make you angry.  Once you start spewing sparks like a cheap firework, I admit I might have batted your furious self up into the air a few times.  But frankly, with your violent language and naked contempt, I always saw you more as the bully.

Please provide evidence of my use of violent language.  Why is contempt automatically bad?  I hold many people in contempt for what I think are good reasons.  You are nothing special in that sense, and I see no reason to clothe that contempt just because you think manners equal ethics.   

Bullies, in my opinion, are more often ineffectual on a level playing field. 

Bullies attempt to make a gradient in their favour where a level playing field should exist.

And your argument for the null position was, if I recall, that it was "hard won"

Yes, I did fall into your language trap and started to use the hill analogy you falsely applied to the use of the null position.  I have already applauded this ploy, but see it now as an attempt to make a gradient in your favour where a level playing field should exist. 

and offered "a fair go."  The second part I address, for the N-teenth time above.  As for the first, I suggest that it needs to be hard won every time.

I agree.  Credence has to be won by all comers making all claims by testing them against the null position.  To accept the burden of rejoinder before the burden of evidence has been met flies in the face of the history of all philosophical, logical and scientific endeavour, and requires that all claims be given equal credence from the word go.  Too many claims, too little life.  Evidence or GTFO.

[IrishJazz]

If they expect other people to show evidence for their positions in theology, in business, and in court, I don't see that they can fault others for expecting the same of them.  One playing field.  No gradient. 

You realize, alas, the the rules for each of those realms is different.  Faith is OK in theology, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in court, and in business, if it pays, it plays.

The argument from don't you have better things to do than spend your time on the internet. 
Yes, I would rather be surfing but the swell, wind and daylight are inconstant, and there are fallacious arguments standing in the way of my enfranchisement, so while I have to wait out onshore winds and night time, I can take on my share of the bullshit.

Surely I am not standing in the way of your enfranchisement from the other side of the world.  I like the combat, so do you.  Fess up.

The value of an endeavour is the destination.  The value of a short-cut is only whether or not it makes the destination easier to reach.  Do you acknowledge that you were incorrect to attempt to make an argument out of simple disdain for short cuts?

My argument was not against the short cut, it was that taking it never engaged the religious.  To use the metaphor, you ran a victory lap around the top of the hill while the opponent waited unengaged below. 

Yes, I agree that the NOMA concept suffers from a lack of clear definition as well as a lack of willingness on the behalf of theists to respect scientific efforts to understand the world.

I think it is more an attempt for theists to respect science but leave space for their religious beliefs, i.e. the God of the Gaps.

I didn't need a simile about strawberries to know that condemning fellatio is ridiculous. 

My frenemy, none of this is necessary.

The Dalai Lama is an authority because people heed him.  The history of that authority was irrelevant to this situation.  As were strawberries and the fact that finding strawberries bitter is a genetically linked trait.

So you decide what is relevant and what is not?  You arbitrarily introduce the Lama into the discussion and then suddenly think you can make rules about what can said about him?  And you call me a bully?  Really son, you need to check yourself.

Yes.

 

Interesting.  We leave it off up here, but made fun of our president for adding one a few years ago.  We should have sent him to you.

I have previously opened our correspondence with reminders of past encounters, but having found it unproductive, launched into this thread as if I'd never encountered you before.  You brought up the past because you, admittedly, enjoy riling me. 
My arguments aren't delicate flowers.  They don't need gentle treatment, but if you are going to dismantle them, you need to address their content, not my mood or my language. 

I enjoy everything about you.  Don't take it to much to heart. 

I don't start with conclusions.  I start with premises and expect others to do the same.

This is the problem with the king of the hill argument.  The premise is valid, but it is not shared, so it makes a poor starting point.  If someone were to start with the premise that god exists you would not accept it either.  I did suggest a (admittedly somewhat bogus) way for God to be introduced as a hypothesis for fine tuning.  At that point you would have to at least explain why the hypothesis should be rejected. 

Manners are not the measure of a person's ethical merit.  Anyone who tries to gain advantage over others through intimidation, whether physical or mental, well spoken or profane, is a bully.

The whole point of argument is to gain advantage over others.  What in the world do you think we are doing here.  Even your accusation of bullying is an attempt to gain advantage over me.  I am not complaining about the tactic, just pointing out it how silly it is.

As mentioned earlier, I have learnt not to do this.  Can you?

Do you have the "I'm rubber and you're glue" meme?  If not, congratulations on inventing it in the southern latitudes.

When has anyone ever chilled out when told to do so by someone with whom they have been frustrated?  Passive aggressive attempt to appear concerned is passive aggressive.

Sorry if I seemed concerned.  You're big enough, and smart enough, to deserve no pity.  And, IMHO, that is a good thing.  I may make fun of your arguments Busker, but I don't patronize you.  I think you are a flawed but passionate and dedicated advocate.  I would say more, but you would look for the knife in the praise.  I honestly think anger is your weakness, and your defensive vitriol against me could hardly be more misplaced.  Your life, your choices.

The fact that you don't believe something is not evidence against that thing.  The argument from incredulity cannot be used to assert that what you think is true.

I didn't present my opinion as a proof, just an opinion, and an invitation for you to do more than sputter on about it. 

We can't know, because if that is the case, they don't come back.  It is easy to measure the effect of discrimination against particular demographics.  Sexism in skeptical circles is well documented and the ratio of male to female online skeptics is evidence of that problem.  You are indiscriminate in your blustering, so identifying gaps in the ranks of forum posters due to your influence would be harder to quantify. 

Again, I am sure that this means something to you.  All I am getting is that you were complaining a while ago about me saying something about the Dalai Lama before, and now you are using sexism as some sort of analogy for me scaring away all the people who agree with you and making an argument for which you have no evidence or proof.  I guess we- excuse me- I, since who else is reading, are supposed to take this on faith.  Based on principles you expouse, I will assume the null hypothesis in this matter. 

That does not mean that you are not a bully. 

No, it means that there is only one data point.  You.  Which makes this an assertion without support.

Please provide evidence of my use of violent language.  Why is contempt automatically bad?  I hold many people in contempt for what I think are good reasons.  You are nothing special in that sense, and I see no reason to clothe that contempt just because you think manners equal ethics.   

Not pissing on me if I was on fire is a violent image,  although I admit I did not accuse you of setting me aflame.  Contempt is fine, unless it is merely a cover for weakness in argument.  And manners have their uses in social situations.  The person who slops food on their chest is much less likely to impress in company, however honest it makes them feel.

Bullies attempt to make a gradient in their favour where a level playing field should exist.

Losers complain about the slope of the field.  How in the world do you think the geometry of the playing field can be altered in a two person conversation?  Oh, is that an argument from incredulity?  I meant it as an expression of contempt for your argument.  I don't think you are a bully, after all.  Why would I?  How could anyone who argues that they should have the hard won space at the top of the hill possibly be confused with someone who didn't want a level playing field?

Could you possibly have no idea how inconsistent your arguments are?  Don't get angry at me, I am only trying to show you.

Yes, I did fall into your language trap and started to use the hill analogy you falsely applied to the use of the null position.  I have already applauded this ploy, but see it now as an attempt to make a gradient in your favour where a level playing field should exist. 

If by my "language trap" you mean your unforced error, I agree.  See above for criticism of your level playing field image.

I agree.  Credence has to be won by all comers making all claims by testing them against the null position.  To accept the burden of rejoinder before the burden of evidence has been met flies in the face of the history of all philosophical, logical and scientific endeavour, and requires that all claims be given equal credence from the word go.  Too many claims, too little life.  Evidence or GTFO.

All philosophical and logical endeavor? There were no religious philosophers, scientists or logicians?  You astound me.  A fool's paradise is still a paradise, if you have the qualifications for entry. 

[worldslaziestbusker]

You realize, alas, the the rules for each of those realms is different.  Faith is OK in theology, proof beyond a reasonable doubt in court, and in business, if it pays, it plays.

Theologians do their best to find evidence to support their ideas, and demand counter evidence of other theologians trying to show their ideas are superior. 
In business if it doesn't play and you signed up without evidence of it's playability, you have no-one to blame but yourself.
Evidence is recognised as valuable.  It's only those who have none to bring to the game who get excited about faith.

Surely I am not standing in the way of your enfranchisement from the other side of the world.  I like the combat, so do you.  Fess up.

Not directly, but as a leading Christian apologist I see your efforts at wedging open the gaps as making my own efforts harder. 

My argument was not against the short cut, it was that taking it never engaged the religious.

I re-read this and still think you were deriding the short-cut.

I think it is more an attempt for theists to respect science but leave space for their religious beliefs, i.e. the God of the Gaps.

They can have a god of the everything for all I care.  Just keep it out of the lives of others.  The gaps aren't theirs and to state that they have dominion where science can't venture ignores the history of science expanding its frontiers.

Interesting.  We leave it off up here, but made fun of our president for adding one a few years ago.  We should have sent him to you.

That was your vice president.

I don't start with conclusions.  I start with premises and expect others to do the same.

This is the problem with the king of the hill argument.

So tempting to quote mine and leave that as it is but...

The premise is valid, but it is not shared

Why is this any more daunting than other things which might not be shared: language, education, cultural background.  If they acknowledge the value of evidence in other aspects of their lives, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to meet on a level playing field and assess their claims in the same light they apply to the claims of others.  If they can't do that, they can't play and shouldn't get butt hurt if no-one listens to them.  I am of the lucky millions, but by no means worldwide majority who speaks English as a first language, but I wouldn't cry poor if my business failed because I didn't take the initiative and learn the lingua franca of the market place. 

Manners are not the measure of a person's ethical merit.  Anyone who tries to gain advantage over others through intimidation, whether physical or mental, well spoken or profane, is a bully.

The whole point of argument is to gain advantage over others. 

By supplying evidence and considered thought, not by intimidation.

What in the world do you think we are doing here.  Even your accusation of bullying is an attempt to gain advantage over me.  I am not complaining about the tactic, just pointing out it how silly it is.

I identify and point out behaviour from you that I think is indicative of bullying and you concede that you deliberately wind me up for no reason other than your own gratification.  The mechanism and evidence have been provided.  If I was trying to bully you, I would do so by deliberately trying to wind you up for no reason other than my own gratification.  I don't have the time and energy for that sort of bullshit.  You aren't that important to me.

As mentioned earlier, I have learnt not to do this.  Can you?

Do you have the "I'm rubber and you're glue" meme?  If not, congratulations on inventing it in the southern latitudes.

Just stop, if you can.  I am percussive and if you stop hitting me, I will stop making a noise. 

Sorry if I seemed concerned.  You're big enough, and smart enough, to deserve no pity.  And, IMHO, that is a good thing.  I may make fun of your arguments Busker, but I don't patronize you.  I think you are a flawed but passionate and dedicated advocate.  I would say more, but you would look for the knife in the praise.  I honestly think anger is your weakness, and your defensive vitriol against me could hardly be more misplaced.  Your life, your choices.

Bolded the important bit.  Wish more people could get a grip on that concept.

That does not mean that you are not a bully. 

No, it means that there is only one data point.  You.  Which makes this an assertion without support.

You already conceded you do it for no reason other than your gratification.  What more is there to bullying?

Not pissing on me if I was on fire is a violent image,  although I admit I did not accuse you of setting me aflame.  Contempt is fine, unless it is merely a cover for weakness in argument.  And manners have their uses in social situations.  The person who slops food on their chest is much less likely to impress in company, however honest it makes them feel.

I have provided my reasons for holding you in contempt, and never said manners don't have utility.  I would not set you on fire and consider my unwillingness to douse you with my urine, which might otherwise be profitably employed on the lemon tree, my prerogative.  If you feel threatened by my words, report me to the moderators, four months after I first used the phrase. 

Bullies attempt to make a gradient in their favour where a level playing field should exist.

Losers complain about the slope of the field.

Their complaint is valid if the field should be level. 

Yes, I did fall into your language trap and started to use the hill analogy you falsely applied to the use of the null position.  I have already applauded this ploy, but see it now as an attempt to make a gradient in your favour where a level playing field should exist. 

If by my "language trap" you mean your unforced error, I agree.  See above for criticism of your level playing field image.

An unforced error is still an error.  I think the playing field should be level and that use of the king of the hill phrase has tripped a number of skeptics into arguing this on your terms simply through the clever control of language.   Double plus good for you, but I want the language to represent the issue accurately and rescind earlier comments about the hard won high ground. 

All philosophical and logical endeavor? There were no religious philosophers, scientists or logicians? 

Show me one who didn't use the evidence available to them or expect others to provide evidence for their counter positions. 

[IrishJazz]

Evidence is recognised as valuable.  It's only those who have none to bring to the game who get excited about faith.

Not directly, but as a leading Christian apologist I see your efforts at wedging open the gaps as making my own efforts harder.

 

That is one crazy characterization of my opinion.  I would break it down for you, but suffice to say that an apologist defends the validity of a belief, not merely criticize the arguments of a subset of its critics.

I re-read this and still think you were deriding the short-cut.

But not because it was a short-cut, but because it led nowhere near the argument.

They can have a god of the everything for all I care.  Just keep it out of the lives of others.  The gaps aren't theirs and to state that they have dominion where science can't venture ignores the history of science expanding its frontiers.

We don't disagree here.  A god of the gaps gives way to science the way darkness retreats before the light. 

That was your vice president.

Correction noted and acknowledged.

Why is this any more daunting than other things which might not be shared: language, education, cultural background.  If they acknowledge the value of evidence in other aspects of their lives, I don't think it is unreasonable to expect them to meet on a level playing field and assess their claims in the same light they apply to the claims of others.  If they can't do that, they can't play and shouldn't get butt hurt if no-one listens to them.  I am of the lucky millions, but by no means worldwide majority who speaks English as a first language, but I wouldn't cry poor if my business failed because I didn't take the initiative and learn the lingua franca of the market place. 

The top of the hill is not a level playing field.  They simply have a different standard for belief of fundamental truths.  Your lingua franca argument here is essentially ad populum- the majority believe it, so they should too. But the vast majority of people believe in God.  Doesn't your argument require that you take the initiative, start with and respect that belief?

Besides, they don't need to prove the existence of God to introduce the hypothesis into the argument, merely moot it.

By supplying evidence and considered thought, not by intimidation.

I don't remember if this is old or not... but I do think it is impossible to intimidate someone here.

I identify and point out behaviour from you that I think is indicative of bullying and you concede that you deliberately wind me up for no reason other than your own gratification.  The mechanism and evidence have been provided.  If I was trying to bully you, I would do so by deliberately trying to wind you up for no reason other than my own gratification.  I don't have the time and energy for that sort of bullshit.  You aren't that important to me.

I wind you up by pointing out the holes in your argument.  It is for my own gratification only because I take your attempts at furious attack as comic. 

Just stop, if you can.  I am percussive and if you stop hitting me, I will stop making a noise. 

Hey Busker, I try to be friendly and you reject that.   I am not hitting you but your arguments, whose emptiness is the source of the reverberation.

Bolded the important bit.  Wish more people could get a grip on that concept.

We agree again.

You already conceded you do it for no reason other than your gratification.  What more is there to bullying?

More to the point, what more is there to posting on the Internet?  This is a conversation/debate/argument Busker.  Participation is the only reward.

I have provided my reasons for holding you in contempt, and never said manners don't have utility.  I would not set you on fire and consider my unwillingness to douse you with my urine, which might otherwise be profitably employed on the lemon tree, my prerogative.  If you feel threatened by my words, report me to the moderators, four months after I first used the phrase

Well then, I have nothing to lose by not courting your good graces.  And why would I report you to the moderators?  I am not threatened but mildly amused.  I don't even see it as bullying, merely ineffectual posturing.  It amazes me that you hold the one person here apparently willing to take your arguments seriously enough to engage in contempt.  But, again, your choice.

Their complaint is valid if the field should be level.

 

And invalid if they want the position at the top of the hill. 

An unforced error is still an error.  I think the playing field should be level and that use of the king of the hill phrase has tripped a number of skeptics into arguing this on your terms simply through the clever control of language.   Double plus good for you, but I want the language to represent the issue accurately and rescind earlier comments about the hard won high ground. 

OK.  But I think that it was the meaning that mattered. 

Show me one who didn't use the evidence available to them or expect others to provide evidence for their counter positions.

The evidence for God that earlier philosophers, scientists and logicians believed still exists.  We agree that science provides a better, alternative explanation, but that is the argument that must be mounted.  Your position seems to be to dismiss all of that evidence- the supposed perfection of natural design, for example- as the starting point.  Since the claims of religion are boundless, and science is not, there is always some area that lies outside the explanation- the gap that the incredible shrinking God fits in.

Your argument is that God should be excluded from the argument unless positive existence can be proved.  Mine is to let the God hypothesis in and then push it past the boundaries of science.  You argue that we should only believe what we know to be true.  I agree, but I recognize that there are a lot of people who know God exists.  They may be wrong, but convincing them of that, or even getting them to back off, is a journey without short cuts. 

The good news is, that if either your approach or mine prevails, the theists are a long way from your front door.