The cherry picking strategy

[firedragon]

Well, not as an atheist. As an atheist I don't believe in gods. But that is functionally empty in everyday life, because I am a lot more.

Now I am honest. Most humans want to be in effect objectively right and that includes some atheists. So most of us fight with whatever version of "Truth" we believe in and some fight "dirty".

Hmm. You made the most interesting post in this thread. I will come back to you for a little more of that.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day

Thats the first verse of a nice old song we sing like its some kind of poem or nursery rhyme, sometimes to children.

What if you quote the first line only?

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam

Then tell someone "Look at this song. Its telling you to live with buffaloes"..

Then they would be demonstrably in the wrong on all accounts... because that first line is some third party stating that THEY are the ones who want to be given a "home where the buffalo roam" - they are not prescribing that you (or anyone else) go live with buffaloes.

Is it any wonder that all of this stuff is so confused and twisted up? When you, @firedragon, can read a line of text like this and glean from it whatever you want to, make something up about what it says, and then react to that instead of what it actually says.

 

[firedragon]

Atheism was attacked with untruth and responded. I noticed your never griped at the attacker. I wonder why

He was making an accusation. You didnt respond to the accusation.

I would like to see your response, but that's solely up to you.

 

[Wildswanderer]

No atheist ever has ever claimed to believe in nothing. What atheism does not believe in is one thing and one thing only, a god... Anything else added to that is nothing more than than deliberate ignorance and bigotry

What is the atheists creed? In regard to Religion they believe in nothing. As in, no deity.
And they argue against anyone who does believe in a deity.

 

[stvdv]

Why do you think people do this? I mean not the owner of the website, but the cut and paste guy. Why? What do they honestly gain by doing that?

When people debate, and are "in it to win it", I can imagine they use cherry picking
When people debate, and are "in it for truth", I can not imagine they use cherry picking

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is the atheists creed? In regard to Religion they believe in nothing. As in, no deity.
And they argue against anyone who does believe in a deity.

All religion are not about gods and not all atheists are without religion.

As for creed atheists as humans have no creed as atheists. That is another part of our world view and this is individual.

 

[MikeF]

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam
Where the deer and the antelope play
Where seldom is heard a discouraging word
And the skies are not cloudy all day

Thats the first verse of a nice old song we sing like its some kind of poem or nursery rhyme, sometimes to children.

What if you quote the first line only?

Oh, give me a home where the buffalo roam

Then tell someone "Look at this song. Its telling you to live with buffaloes"..

It could be that the person quoting this line took it from a website. This website maybe on a mission and they love cherry picking lines like that and listing the cherry picked lines for shock effect. But does not the one who cuts and pastes this line from a website have some responsibility to do some analysis? This is an everyday occurrence.

Why do you think people do this? I mean not the owner of the website, but the cut and paste guy. Why? What do they honestly gain by doing that?

When I first read the OP I did not realize the sub-text was about non-believers in a particular scripture 'cherry-picking' texts and quotes out of the scripture to illustrate a point. Is it your argument that all ( or perhaps in your view, most always) such quotation and reference to specific texts is always out of context when done by a non-believer in the tenets of the text or scripture under discussion?

Can one ever select a quote or passage from scripture that is relevant to a point or argument, that is a valid, in-context, illustration of the point being made?

 

[firedragon]

When I first read the OP I did not realize the sub-text was about non-believers in a particular scripture 'cherry-picking' texts and quotes out of the scripture. Is it your argument that all such quotation and reference to specific texts is always out of context when done by a non-believer in the tenets of the text or scripture under discussion?

Not at all.

Can one ever select a quote or passage from scripture that is relevant to a point or argument, that is a valid, in-context, illustration of the point being made?

Absolutely.

 

[ChristineM]

What is the atheists creed? In regard to Religion they believe in nothing. As in, no deity.
And they argue against anyone who does believe in a deity.

They believe in lots of things, they simply do not believe in god or gods.

Tell me do you believe in Thor or Bas? No?, Then you must be almost as atheist as me

And i think you by definition of your own words, have that last sentence back to front

 

[MikeF]

Not at all.

Absolutely.

Then is the OP simply a call for those on RF to pause and reflect on how we engage in discourse?

If that is the case, why focus on Atheists? By calling out Atheists specifically, do you not run the risk of playing into, and reinforcing, the confirmation bias of Theists?

Your comments imply most Atheists employ this fatal flaw (you allow a limited exception for some professionals). How will this be perceived by Theists? Won't it reinforce their bias that it is specifically Atheists that are missing something, that it is the Atheist who is blinded by bias?

I would suggest your framing of this issues does not meet with the standards you claim to uphold.

 

[firedragon]

Then is the OP simply a call for those on RF to pause and reflect on how we engage in discourse?

If that is the case, why focus on Atheists? By calling out Atheists specifically, do you not run the risk of playing into, and reinforcing, the confirmation bias of Theists?

Your comments imply most Atheists employ this fatal flaw (you allow a limited exception for some professionals). How will this be perceived by Theists? Won't it reinforce their bias that it is specifically Atheists that are missing something, that it is the Atheist who is blinded by bias?

I would suggest your framing of this issues does not meet with the standards you claim to uphold.

I think its a no to all.

 

[Wildswanderer]

They believe in lots of things, they simply do not believe in god or gods.

Then they are a religion?

 

[firedragon]

Tell me do you believe in Thor or Bas? No?, Then you must be almost as atheist as me

In that argument, the monotheists must be almost next door to atheists. So you should embrace the monotheists like Muslims and Jews and focus on the so called polytheists where ever you can find them.

Thats based on your own argument.

 

[ChristineM]

Then they are a religion?

As i said at the beginning of this, look up the definition of religion. I'll even copy and past it to save you the trouble of looking

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.​

Tell me, is believing my children will do well at school a religion?
Is believing my car will start in the morning a religion?
Is believing you have no idea what you are talking about on this matter a religion?

I rest my case

 

[MikeF]

In that argument, the monotheists must be almost next door to atheists. So you should embrace the monotheists like Muslims and Jews and focus on the so called polytheists where ever you can find them.

Thats based on your own argument.

I think the argument is more along the lines of, "If you can deny the existence of some, you can deny the existence of all". If the monotheist can be atheistic to every other deity but their own, how can they claim immunity from justification for their own deity.

 

[firedragon]

I think the argument is more along the lines of, "If you can deny the existence of some, you can deny the existence of all". If the monotheist can be atheistic to every other deity but their own, how can they claim immunity from justification for their own deity.

Not at all.

 

[firedragon]

As i said at the beginning of this, look up the definition of religion. I'll even copy and past it to save you the trouble of looking

Religion : the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Thats not a valid description. This is like something from a dictionary. In such a discussion, this is absolutely invalid. Even some educated atheists will not concur with that kind of analysis.

 

[MikeF]

Thats not a valid description. This is like something from a dictionary. In such a discussion, this is absolutely invalid. Even some educated atheists will not concur with that kind of analysis.

How do you define the label 'Religion'? What do you consider a valid description of the term?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Look at how much time they spend defending thier religion. It's amusing, really. "We believe in nothing and we want you to believe in nothing too!"

This is one of the most fundamental misunderstandings of atheism I've ever seen.

 

[Link]

It's a headache to deal with this silly behavior.