Ep. 106: Is pro-life compatible with Christianity?

[gary_s]

If I really can't distinguish between your claims about what you believe and delusional thinking, why shouldn't I be able to ask you about that without you getting all defensive and dick-ish about it like Mitch does? (I know you don't... I'm just a little upset about Mitch right now....)

Jim, that would be because Mitch does not know how to NOT be a DICK!

I can't help but believe that you, or Mitch, or any other reasonable person would ask me to back up or otherwise support my claim that there are fairies living in my garden. That's only reasonable and fair. So why shouldn't I ask you to back up or otherwise support your claims about your God?

Am I missing something here?

Jim

Nothing that I can see. Seems reasonable to me. Which means it will massively offense Mitch and will result in many rounds of "You are intolerant", from him.

[Rian]

Rian, your last point is very important. Yes, it is very easy for people to not only misunderstand, but also to run off on a tailwind about what they think about the other person based on one comment. Mitch is the worst on this. He hears one thing and concludes that the other person is intolerant and bigoted even though he barely knows this person. It's abhorrent how he does this and he should be censored for it. IF anyone here abuses his privileges here it is Mitch. He is constantly calling people names and judging them when all he would have to do is ask a few questions and understand better. I am quite sick of it.

Yes, in a normal conversation, the person would interrupt and say "hey, that's not what I meant!" and correct it. But that can't happen here, so the person just continues their post, and then it's a huge mess to clean up. I can't tell you how often I've said "No, they didn't mean that!" and then watch a thread blow up. What I found is helpful is to NEVER respond to a post until I've read the ENTIRE post.

I disagree about Mitch, though, Gary (and Mitch, I'm not meaning to talk behind your back, but I think this might be helpful) - I think that most of the atheists that are currently here really do have a double-standard which Mitch is very good at seeing. Now he's also defensive and has a quick defensive trigger (so am I, and I need to work on that), but I think he's very good at pointing out the double standard that most atheists don't seem to be able to even see, and because they don't see it, they don't agree with it, and they get mad at Mitch, and it just starts going downhill.

The dynamic that has taken over here, starting about 2 years ago, is really puzzling to me - I see Mitch and others on the Christian side pointing out things that are incredibly obvious to me, but that some atheists find offensive, and think that we should retract. Yet when those atheists say things that some Christians find offensive, their attitude seems to be "if you find it offensive, tough! It's just what I think is true!" I think that you are one of the exceptions on the atheist side, and that you really try to reach out and understand, but even you don't seem to see things sometimes that to me are really obviously a double-standard, and I don't know how to fix that.

Anyway, just some thoughts - please read it in the tone of a friend who is concerned about people that she likes and doesn't know what to do about it.

[Rian]

If I really can't distinguish between your claims about what you believe and delusional thinking, why shouldn't I be able to ask you about that without you getting all defensive and dick-ish about it like Mitch does? (I know you don't... I'm just a little upset about Mitch right now....)

Jim, that would be because Mitch does not know how to NOT be a DICK!

I disagree. There are two ways to ask that - one way is the way that he reacts to in anger (and so do I) and the other way is a way that he will react to thoughtfully. Well, and if he's already defensive, he might interpret the latter as the former.

The first way is when people ask in a condescending/mocking way, coupled with an attitude that they're right and there's no question that you're wrong. That way often involves fairies and the FSM, and frankly, I think sometimes it's just an excuse to get a cowardly, bullying hit in against a person.

However, I've seen it asked another way - respectful, and truly inquiring and wanting to know. Jim's post a while back was like that. And those people will typically end up with "well, I don't see it, but I can't be in your body and experience and know what you've experienced and know, so I can believe that you could have sufficient evidence to decide how you decided."

Anyway, that's all the energy I have for now, so I'll stop with the middle-child peace-making efforts

[gary_s]

Rian, Mitch is not capable of such complexities. He is looking to always bash those whose ideas he doesn't like. He may choose to bash them in different levels of assholeness depending on his mood, but he basically is just looking to be an asshole and to bash them nonetheless. I've seen no evidence to the contrary. When he shows some level of restraint, I'll concede he has grown. Until then, I'm assuming Mitch is only 5 years old.

[mitchellmckain]

Rian, your last point is very important. Yes, it is very easy for people to not only misunderstand, but also to run off on a tailwind about what they think about the other person based on one comment. Mitch is the worst on this. He hears one thing and concludes that the other person is intolerant and bigoted even though he barely knows this person. It's abhorrent how he does this and he should be censored for it. IF anyone here abuses his privileges here it is Mitch. He is constantly calling people names and judging them when all he would have to do is ask a few questions and understand better. I am quite sick of it.

Yes that may indeed be what you percieve. But what you percieve is not necessarily what others percieve especially when their way of thinking is vastly different from your own. What I see is a lot of atheists not only habitually mocking and name calling but more importantly making their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for making judgments of others and even dictating what the thinking and motivations of these other people are. I most certainly do see that as intolerant and I not only do not fail to say so but I quite often try to demonstrate this by showing how doing the same thing from the other perspective results in something that they can recognize as offensive. But all to often the response is accusations that I am calling them names and accusing them of being intolerant and bigotted. I quite often explain that of course I do not know them and my comments are nothing personal, but I absolutely will not back down from my stand on this issue just because they make this a pretext for neverending personal comments and character assassination.

[mitchellmckain]

Rian, Mitch is not capable of such complexities. He is looking to always bash those whose ideas he doesn't like. He may choose to bash them in different levels of assholeness depending on his mood, but he basically is just looking to be an asshole and to bash them nonetheless. I've seen no evidence to the contrary. When he shows some level of restraint, I'll concede he has grown. Until then, I'm assuming Mitch is only 5 years old.

I make no assumption or judgements about what others are capable of, what they are looking to do or choosing to do. I do not pretend that the interactions on this forum could possibly provide sufficient evidence for doing any such thing. I will only make the observation that when people are angry they certainly have a difficult time shown restraint or living up to even what they themselves think "acting their age" means.

[Rian]

Rian, Mitch is not capable of such complexities. He is looking to always bash those whose ideas he doesn't like. He may choose to bash them in different levels of assholeness depending on his mood, but he basically is just looking to be an asshole and to bash them nonetheless. I've seen no evidence to the contrary.

I have, so we'll just have to disagree. I think he gets angry too quickly, and assumes things too quickly and runs with them instead of asking for clarification, but frankly, I completely agree with what he says below:

What I see is a lot of atheists not only habitually mocking and name calling but more importantly making their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for making judgments of others and even dictating what the thinking and motivations of these other people are.

Now I also see some Christians doing the latter bit, but I think the atheist side is far ahead on the attacking side, mainly thru the efforts of KTR.

I think Mitch has a lot of insight, and is truthful, and his background gives us some unique and valuable information, but I also think that he needs to continue to improve and not be so willing to jump off into anger when it is still merely misunderstanding on the other side. He is typically the first to make the jump to escalate things.

[mitchellmckain]

What I see is a lot of atheists not only habitually mocking and name calling but more importantly making their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for making judgments of others and even dictating what the thinking and motivations of these other people are.

Now I also see some Christians doing the latter bit, but I think the atheist side is far ahead on the attacking side, mainly thru the efforts of KTR.

I see Christians doing all of these things and worse. But one does not justify the other and such things should be opposed no matter who is doing them, AND that is exactly what I do.

[Rian]

Well, you also kind of get in this ranting mode, even when more than one person is telling you that that's not what the other person meant. Maybe if you could just pause and be willing to re-look at things, if the person is saying that's not what they meant, and saying it in a non-ranting manner. I think Jim has been very patient this go-round, for example, but you don't seem to be giving him a chance to explain. You just keep pushing your answer. Then Jim isn't going to worry about the validity of your answer if it's not an answer to what he's asking - he's just going to try to get you to understand his question. You have an excellent point, Mitch, and I see what you're saying and I agree with it, but I think you're missing what Jim is asking still, and then you get frustrated because he doesn't see the validity of your response - but again, your response isn't an answer to what he's asking.

Anyway, I can't sleep, so I'm here on the board again ... I was also checking up on my other board where I'm an admin - we try to do an April Fool's joke every year - this year, we switched the codes for all the smileys around If someone goes into the main reply box and clicks on a smiley picture, it will come up right, but if they use the quick reply option and TYPE in the smiley CODE, then they'll get the smiley that I swapped the code for .... And I tried to make the swaps for something similar, so they might not notice right at first ...Anyway, silly but fun. I wonder when they'll notice?

[Rian]

What I said I think you know, but are afraid or embarrassed to admit it, was that there is no way to distinguish between delusional thinking and your claims that you can "see and hear" things with no demonstrable evidence to support your claims.
Jim

Is this right, Jim - to try to narrow it down a bit, and to switch people so I don't put words in anyone else's mouth, are you saying that there is no way for YOU to distinguish between delusional thinking and my claim that I can somehow sense God? Is that all you're saying? IOW, you're not saying that it IS delusional on my part, right? or that you MUST conclude that it's delusional? You're just saying that YOU cannot conclusively and objectively tell the difference, with what you have to work with?

Now that's what I understood you to say earlier, and I would agree with that. I would also add, though, that one can go further than just "I can't tell for sure", based on the person involved and the claim involved. IOW, if the PERSON involved keeps saying irrational things like they have 3 legs, then you would be more likely to think their God-claims are also irrational. But if the person involved has been consistently rational, then you would give their God-claim more weight, wouldn't you? Not a conclusive "I believe you!", maybe, but wouldn't the claim be farther towards "I believe you" than "You're nuts!" on the scale of believability?

ALso, if the claim is something like "I hear a noise" and you can't hear the noise, wouldn't you be more likely to put it higher on the scale than if the claim was "I see a purple unicorn on your head"?

IOW, yes, you can't conclusively tell the difference, but it doesn't end there in most cases - don't we usually put the claim somewhere on the scale between believe and don't believe, based on the person and the claim?

[JustJim]

This has really degenerated into such a mess that I don’t know where to begin.

First, here’s my original post with my original question back on page 9 of this thread:

Joey and Mitch... and other believers who identify with what Mitch says and Joey agrees with....

Yes we Christians see a person and His intent written in its overall pattern, but there is no objective evidence to back it up...

How is that different from delusion or hallucination? I realize that's of no importance to the one who is delusional or hallucinating, but what about to those who aren't hearing/seeing what the hallucinator or delusional person is seeing/hearing? How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

I know it sounds like I'm being nasty here, but I'm really not trying to be that way. I'm genuinely curious, and would really like to know, how I would be able to tell whether what you say you hear/see is "real" (exists outside the imaginations of your brains) or is a hallucination/delusion. Is there no way for me to tell?

Jim

Over the next few pages, as a result of trying to re-state and clarify my question so Mitch could understand it and respond to what I was actually asking, rather than to what he had erroneously concocted in his mind into several different straw man versions of the question, I jumbled things up quite a bit from the original purpose of my question, which was to learn something and gain some insights into how/why Christians are able to honestly believe with the certainty they exhibit in the face of a total absence of objective evidence to support their beliefs. I should have re-stated the original question exactly the same way each time. That would have avoided most of this mess. Water under the bridge....

Mitch is correct in his repeated claim that a delusion is a belief that is contradicted by superior evidence to the contrary. What he seems to me to be missing is the corollary implication of that, which occurs when there is no objective evidence either to confirm or to contradict the belief. My belief that there are fairies living in my garden fits that aspect of delusional thinking, since there is no objective evidence either to confirm or to contradict my claim. That is not to say that the absence of objective evidence that there are fairies living in my garden (no fairy footprints, no fairy droppings -- ewwww, no fairy sightings, etc.) is PROOF that there aren’t any fairies living there, but who among us reasonable people would accept my claim that fairies are living in my garden as true without some objective evidence to support my claim? I don’t think any of us would, and that is the burr under my saddle that triggered my question. So, why would we expect objective evidence to support my claims about fairies in my garden, but NOT expect the same in support of theists’ claims about their god(s)? I think that’s a legitimate question that BOTH theists AND atheists need to understand, if not answer. (As an aside, I think atheists have already answered the question. They DO expect evidence to support theistic claims just as they would for claims about fairies. Theists exempt claims about their gods from such evidence because there isn’t any. Doh!)

Oh, I almost forgot... I DO NOT THINK ALL THEISTS ARE DELUSIONAL! Why not, you might ask?

Although there are a few delusional theists out there, most are not. Surely none on this forum are, or at least none have given any indications they are. Even though there may be no objective evidence for them to hang their hats on in support of what they believe, they find other things just as convincing and persuasive. They reason that their beliefs are warranted by what they observe around them and their life experiences. They find some (or all) of the classic arguments for the existence of God persuasive, if not conclusive. They’ve examined and contemplated all the possibilities to their satisfaction, and they’ve concluded, reasonably, that their beliefs are appropriate and fit them just fine. They may doubt and question their beliefs from time to time, but they’ve always been able either to re-confirm what they believe or to modify their beliefs to fit new information and new ways of thinking of old information.

Personally, I don’t find theists’ reasons for believing satisfactorily convincing or persuasive, and I find other explanations for everything more convincing and persuasive. So I’m an atheist. But I also don’t know for sure about ANY of all of this stuff, so I’m also an agnostic.

The facts that I don’t believe in gods; that I don’t find theists’ reasons for believing to be sufficiently convincing or persuasive; that I find other (natural, materialistic) explanations for things more convincing and persuasive; or that I enjoy challenging, arguing, and even sometimes ridiculing and mocking theists’ beliefs DOES NOT MEAN that I’m intolerant of them or their beliefs, that I demand they abandon their beliefs in favor of mine, or that I think they're delusional in their thinking (even though it often does resemble that).

I know that still leaves a lot of holes and a lot of questions and misunderstandings, but I hope it clears up some of this mess so we can go on with the discussion.

RIAN: I've read all your posts in response to mine, as well as your other posts where you referenced things I'd said or directed things to me. I hope this post answers your questions and sheds a clearer, if not a brighter, light on where I stand. Thanks for your insightful comments, observations, and suggestions. If there's something more you want to hear from me about this, please ask!

Jim

[gary_s]

I make no assumption or judgements about what others are capable of, what they are looking to do or choosing to do. I do not pretend that the interactions on this forum could possibly provide sufficient evidence for doing any such thing. I will only make the observation that when people are angry they certainly have a difficult time shown restraint or living up to even what they themselves think "acting their age" means.

Oh, no? So, if I post something about a Christian that you totally disagree with, you are saying that you wont' label me as a liar or a bigot or intolerant? Mitch, you do this all the time. You are constantly deriving motivations and deeper meanings into what people post. It's your signature. And you never like it when someone challenges you on it; all you do is defend it. You may not be angry when you do this, but your behavior does make others angry and rightly so.

[gary_s]

What I see is a lot of atheists not only habitually mocking and name calling but more importantly making their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for making judgments of others and even dictating what the thinking and motivations of these other people are.

What I see is Mitch not only habitually mocking and name calling but more importantly making their own opinions on objectively undecidable issues the basis for making judgments of others and even dictating what the thinking and motivations of these other people are.

Now I also see some Christians doing the latter bit, but I think the atheist side is far ahead on the attacking side, mainly thru the efforts of KTR.

I respect your right to that opinion Rian, but frankly I doubt you can have an unbiased opinion about it and I also doubt that anyone could really tally up the ratio of Christians vs. Atheists who do this. Really I think people on both sides will just say, yeah we do it but the other guys do it more, and neither side has any real evidence to stand on, so I think the point is essentially moot because it isn't going to be convincing either way.

I think Mitch has a lot of insight, and is truthful, and his background gives us some unique and valuable information, but I also think that he needs to continue to improve and not be so willing to jump off into anger when it is still merely misunderstanding on the other side. He is typically the first to make the jump to escalate things.

Thank you for acknowledging this, Rian. I don't know if Mitch is angry or not and it really doesn't matter because it is his bad behavior that I take issue with. He purports be this defender of diversity, but it seems that any time he meets up with a differing opinion, he launches into a tirade of why the other opinion is not just wrong, but totally unjustifiable and deviant. But he seldom even explains why this is so. He just blurts out that it is INTOLERANT! And I suppose everyone is supposed to just take it without response because any sort of response to Mitch only incurs more charges of INTOLERANCE!

Please take my comments on the other thread regarding Yuri. All I said was that I mostly agreed with Yuri and I gave some reasons why. Now I don't expect everyone to agree with this, but I do expect others to respect my right to have this opinion because I'm being honest here and not just trying to seed a shouting match. Mitch does not respect others right to have an opinion, or at least he behaves in a way that suggests he does not. He refuses to debate the merits of my argument and instead just throws insults at it and charges me with intolerance and bigotry. That is not a discussion; that is a childish rant. So, then Mitch just goes into bunker mode and throws out nothing but more insults and refuses any effort to establish an actual conversation.

[mitchellmckain]

How is that different from delusion or hallucination? I realize that's of no importance to the one who is delusional or hallucinating, but what about to those who aren't hearing/seeing what the hallucinator or delusional person is seeing/hearing? How do THEY distinguish between what is real and what is whacko?

The term "whacko" is frankly a term of intolerance, even if it is one that is used rather commonly.

When you ask such questions what I immediately envision is visiting native Americans or talking to bushmen in Australia and asking myself what is the proper behavior in response to their assertions that do not agree with my understanding of reality. It certainly does not include calling them whacko. Being a pluralist and believing that there is an irreducible subjective aspect to reality itself makes things far easier for me than for people who do not. People who are not pluralist and believe in a purely objective reality but are trying to be tolerant will try to fit their claims somewhere in their worldview and how tolerant the result is will depend on that worldview. Viewing them as ignorant savages, victims of their religion or poor lost souls without the benefit of the knowledge of Christ are not very tolerant views from my perspective. A tolerant view would be open to learning something new from these people and that would easier for me because I would not judge their experiences and beliefs to be lacking in reality just because they don't conform to mine.

Thus I insist that the only way to distinguish what is delusional, hallucinatory or just misinformed is by whether there are any contradictions with the objective evidence.

Over the next few pages, as a result of trying to re-state and clarify my question so Mitch could understand it and respond to what I was actually asking, rather than to what he had erroneously concocted in his mind into several different straw man versions of the question, I jumbled things up quite a bit from the original purpose of my question, which was to learn something and gain some insights into how/why Christians are able to honestly believe with the certainty they exhibit in the face of a total absence of objective evidence to support their beliefs. I should have re-stated the original question exactly the same way each time. That would have avoided most of this mess. Water under the bridge....

Mitch is correct in his repeated claim that a delusion is a belief that is contradicted by superior evidence to the contrary. What he seems to me to be missing is the corollary implication of that, which occurs when there is no objective evidence either to confirm or to contradict the belief. My belief that there are fairies living in my garden fits that aspect of delusional thinking, since there is no objective evidence either to confirm or to contradict my claim. That is not to say that the absence of objective evidence that there are fairies living in my garden (no fairy footprints, no fairy droppings -- ewwww, no fairy sightings, etc.) is PROOF that there aren’t any fairies living there, but who among us reasonable people would accept my claim that fairies are living in my garden as true without some objective evidence to support my claim? I don’t think any of us would, and that is the burr under my saddle that triggered my question. So, why would we expect objective evidence to support my claims about fairies in my garden, but NOT expect the same in support of theists’ claims about their god(s)? I think that’s a legitimate question that BOTH theists AND atheists need to understand, if not answer. (As an aside, I think atheists have already answered the question. They DO expect evidence to support theistic claims just as they would for claims about fairies. Theists exempt claims about their gods from such evidence because there isn’t any. Doh!)

Oh, I almost forgot... I DO NOT THINK ALL THEISTS ARE DELUSIONAL! Why not, you might ask?

Although there are a few delusional theists out there, most are not. Surely none on this forum are, or at least none have given any indications they are. Even though there may be no objective evidence for them to hang their hats on in support of what they believe, they find other things just as convincing and persuasive. They reason that their beliefs are warranted by what they observe around them and their life experiences. They find some (or all) of the classic arguments for the existence of God persuasive, if not conclusive. They’ve examined and contemplated all the possibilities to their satisfaction, and they’ve concluded, reasonably, that their beliefs are appropriate and fit them just fine. They may doubt and question their beliefs from time to time, but they’ve always been able either to re-confirm what they believe or to modify their beliefs to fit new information and new ways of thinking of old information.

All of that is good to see written down for it does indeed clear up a lot of things. And yes you have made many of these things clear at many other times in this forum. I do know that. So when I point out that there is a particular thing being said that I think is indulging in intolerant behavior I am not erasing all that you said before to make that one thing the be all and end all of who you are. I frankly don't even try to make judgements of who people are because I don't think the interactions on this forum provide anywhere enough information for making such judgements. I just make comments on the particular things that have just been said and that is all.

Personally, I don’t find theists’ reasons for believing satisfactorily convincing or persuasive, and I find other explanations for everything more convincing and persuasive. So I’m an atheist. But I also don’t know for sure about ANY of all of this stuff, so I’m also an agnostic.

Understood and I reaffirm that this is a totally rational, reasonable and moral perspective.

The facts that I don’t believe in gods; that I don’t find theists’ reasons for believing to be sufficiently convincing or persuasive; that I find other (natural, materialistic) explanations for things more convincing and persuasive; or that I enjoy challenging, arguing, and even sometimes ridiculing and mocking theists’ beliefs DOES NOT MEAN that I’m intolerant of them or their beliefs, that I demand they abandon their beliefs in favor of mine, or that I think they're delusional in their thinking (even though it often does resemble that).

Well try to imagine a person visting Native Americans or the bushmen in Austraila and enjoying himself ridiculing and mocking their beliefs and see if you think that fits your picture of a tolerant person. This is not a matter of classifying people as one thing or another, but one of identifying the behaviors that should be called bigotted and intolerant. Tolerance is an ideal that has to be fought for and it is one on which the whole world has a long way to go.

[Rian]

Now I also see some Christians doing the latter bit, but I think the atheist side is far ahead on the attacking side, mainly thru the efforts of KTR.

I respect your right to that opinion Rian, but frankly I doubt you can have an unbiased opinion about it and I also doubt that anyone could really tally up the ratio of Christians vs. Atheists who do this. Really I think people on both sides will just say, yeah we do it but the other guys do it more, and neither side has any real evidence to stand on, so I think the point is essentially moot because it isn't going to be convincing either way.

But part of this particular discussion topic is that one side boils down to "I don't see God" and the other side boils down to "I don't either, but I see these things", so the atheist side has FAR more to work on that they disagree with, and the topic is typically emotional, often with deep hurts, so attacking will work itself into the disagreements from some of the atheists.

Basically all an atheist has to say is "I don't see it"; the Christian needs to present information.