http://wane.com/2014/07/18/motorcycl...the-day-i-die/

What excuse will the religionists come up with to make this seem like it didn't have roots in religion?

Choices:
A) It was somehow about money. Everything is always about money.
B) It's about geo-political issues. Nothing to do with religion.
C) When she said she let go of the wheel because of her belief in god, we can't actually believe her. Invent some other reason that she did it on her behalf.

I'm all for pointing out the silliness of religion but this sounds like mental health issues as opposed to theism.

So option C, then?

Kind of like when nazis were putting innocent people in ovens. The problem apparently wasn't that they held nazi ideals that led directly to those actions, they just all were totally mentally ill! Yeah, being a nazi had nothing to do with it, lol.

More excuses for the poor influence of religion.

If terrorists themselves explicitly said they did what they did for religious reasons 95% of the people on this forum would try to figure out a way to blame something else. At what point do you stop trying to invent excuses on other peoples behalf to salvage your deluded worldview and take people at their word?

I'm doubtful that there is useful generalization to derive from this story (I would be surprised to learn that religious people are worse drivers than the norm).

And if I at this point I suggested that you're showing a lack of sympathy and empathy toward the suffering of the motorcyclist, or even the mental health of the driver, you'd wonder what the hell I was talking about when what you're clearly addressing is the suitability, or not, of the OP as a point of discussion. And this despite the OP actually giving an opinion ITT, as bad as it is. That's where I am in the ISIS thread OrP, wondering what can be derived from discussing it.

</offtopicuseofdifferingcontexttomakeapoint>

Well, the Kalām cosmological argument supports her God as much as any other.

Which I think is telling.

Two points. I don't have any doubts about the suitability of the OP as a point of discussion. It is clear enough to me that people here want to talk about Islam, and especially those who are critical of it. I take it that the OP is driving to a point, one he makes more clearly in his second post.

Second, as for the bolded, not at all. If someone suggested to me that I was showing a lack of empathy and sympathy, I would take that as an important criticism that I am probably not competent to judge for myself (most people who lack sympathy for others don't seem to notice). I would probably ask people I trust if this criticism was really accurate, and if they give it any credence at all I would assume that it probably was.

Look, for me these issues are fundamentally moral issues, and I take very seriously the idea of skill in moral judgement. Making good moral judgements is not just a matter of logic and reasoning, but also of character, which is inseparable from our emotions. As such, I wouldn't trust my own conclusions about a moral issue if I felt that for some reason it involved a personal weakness of character (such as an inability to empathize with a victim).

What is the atheist alternative to option C? That God did actually tell her to let go of the wheel? It seems inappropriate to accuse religionists of inventing some other reason for her letting go of the wheel when you are bound to deny her account happened.

Theres a difference between saying that no generalisation can be gleaned from the story, and accusing people who say that "christians are facing death" of rhetoric

My guess is a combination of "God works in mysterious ways" and "God works all things together for good" with a little seasoning of the No True Scotsman defense peppered in.

In all seriousness though, this:

is probably correct. "I run people over because Jesus told me to do so" is definitely not standard Christian belief.

Quite. Who would argue that is is? Even if you look at a broader argument from the OP, that the religious blame their beliefs for their behaviour... isn't that trivially true?

OTOH, if (as unlikely as it is) she gets off using this defence, now that would be a conversation starter.

Agreed, they're totally different things, what's your point. When I asked what the point of posting the ISIS article was I was speaking to the OP about his intentions for the thread. When I accused Dereds of using rhetoric, I was speaking to Dereds about the phrasing of his post.

Does that help?

Fair enough but if I ask for clarification on the purpose of a thread, I don't expect to be accused of a lack of sympathy for the suffering of the people in the article that the thread is about. That whole reaction smacks of the sort of thing Bill O'Reilly does to great effect.

ME "Can I ask why this thread about the war in Afghanistan has been created?"

BILL O'REILLY "HEY! Don't you know people are suffering dying in Afghanistan? How dare you display such a lack of sympathy?"

ME "er.... wut?'

No, thats not how it went down at all

You: Can I ask why this thread about the war in Afghanistan has been created?

*silence*

You : So is this just a 'see, Christians ARE being persecuted' thread?

Bill O reilly : This is a perfectly valid topic for RGT and I don't understand your objection.

You : My objection is that it simply seems to be raising a flag for persecuted Christians

Bill O reilly : How about waiting to see what happens.

You : I think my assessment of the OP is correct but if you want to discuss 'people possibly facing death' (use rhetoric much?) go for it

Bill O reilly : Christians seemingly ARE facing death, so its not rhetorical

Blonde Co-Host : Would you be as nonchalant if it was atheists?

You: I care about the christians dying!

I did use rhetorical in responses to MB's allegation of me using rhetoric much, so your restating of my argument through Bill O'Reilly is fair. MB's jpeg should really be directed at me if anyone but it would still be wrong in any case.

To actually respond to MB your use of "use rhetoric much?" was unnecessary and my response that I was not using a rhetorical device justified given that people facing death was actually the point of the thread. However I consider you free to respond how you wish just as you chose to respond here to neeeel and OrP, I also consider myself free to find such discussions uninteresting.

Hopefully you can now see the difference between questioning the OP's motives for starting the thread vs not caring about the people in the OP linked article. Hopefully you can also see how from my perspective your comment came across as rhetoric.

The motives of a poster are not immune to criticism because of the awful nature of the subject.

You're not alone, I'm totally fed up with this but can't let extremely offensive accusations of lack of sympathy or empathy wrt to the suffering or deaths of others go unanswered no matter that they're groundless.

Sorry, I dont see how from your perspective, his comment came across as rhetoric.

For what it is worth I think you might be the RGT poster who least relies on rhetorical arguments.

I didn't make any claim with regard to your actual caring about the people in the linked report, I found your accusation of rhetoric misguided because the risk of people dying was in the opening post.

I also take issue with allegations of using rhetoric when you open another thread with an uncritical reposting of a headline you later claim is blatant rhetoric. While in that thread you request for some generosity in not getting tied down on something "horribly nitty" and yet you post that jpeg in response to neeeel above.

Cheers, it's not that I don't think they can be useful it's just I don't think I'd be particularly adept at using them. I'm rarely so confident in a position as to want to employ rhetoric rather than actually exploring the arguments.

And I found your mention of 'people dying' to be rhetoric because I was discussing the motives of the OP, not the subject that he linked. How is it that I can understand your misunderstanding but you can't get mine? It's clear to me now that you weren't using rhetoric, my accusation was misguided.

I'll say again though, just so we don't forget how this happened, the motives of a poster are not immune to criticism because of the awful nature of the subject.

Er... because I realised my error in cut and pasting the title without editing it to better reflect my own view? Way to fail to be generous Dereds, in exactly the way I anticipated.

Neeel's misunderstanding of rhetoric means and why I accused you of using it was a significant issue and worth addressing. He seemed to believe that rhetoric meant that I thought that you were saying something that wasn't true.

When did I say that he relied on a rhetorical argument or that he even used it on one argument? I said he used rhetoric, in one post.

Don't start inventing things and confusing this even further.


Ok. Not much I can do help you there since I've already explained it a couple of times.

You havent explained why you thought it was rhetoric at all. You just said "rhetoric much"

I dont misunderstand rhetoric, I cut and paste "rhetorical" from dereds post.

I am merely pointing out a double standard.

Neeeel didn't display any misunderstanding of rhetoric, his reposting of my actual response to you as Bill O'Reilly was accurate, you emboldened the "it's not rhetorical" when they were the words I actually used in response to you.

Often my issue with you is that you learn about some cognitive bias, or some paradox, or some logical fallacy or some concept such as rhetoric and you apply it indiscriminately despite posters telling you the application is inappropriate. I have 0 interest in this discussion just as I had 0 intention of employing a rhetorical device in response to you in that thread. Look at the actual words like.

You are perfectly free to respond to this how you wish but I'm done.

There's no double standard, I realised that the title of that thread was rhetoric and admitted as much. Then I thought you were using rhetoric and said so, then I understood your perspective, understood that I was wrong, and admitted as much.

I'm guessing that appealing to some people for generosity is a waste of typing time.

Yeah he did.

lol, you think I only just learned what rhetoric means? Or because it's come up a couple times recently that it's connected in some way? Hmm, I'm sure there's a logical fallacy that describes what you're doing here However, I'm not accusing anyone of any fallacies or cognitive biases. You're just freewheeling now.

Gee thanks, I know you'll see this anyway. I notice that apart from LZ exchanging a few posts with our resident Islamic apologist, that thread has generated exactly the null response I expected from such a pointless OP. Or, is there a point? Who knows.

The woman forgot the Christian God's most prominent 2,500 year instructions about "do not kill" and "love your neighbor" . Maybe she read too many two plus two nihilism postings and got confused.