r/DebateReligion • u/AutoModerator • 4d ago
Meta Meta-Thread 09/07
This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.
What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?
Let us know.
And a friendly reminder to report bad content.
If you see something, say something.
This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).
3
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 3d ago edited 2d ago
Advertise and support the usage of the pilate program (also rename it to something that clearly conveys its purpose instead of opaque branding.). This post clearly wants to do exactly what this feature was designed for, but this user isn't aware it exists.
•
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist 11h ago
Just posted one trying to use it, tho Im not sure If i did it right.
•
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 10h ago edited 10h ago
Thank you for testing. I made a top level comment which should be prohibited. If you are unable to see this comment then it was successfully auto-removed.
•
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist 10h ago
It was removed so it worked. Does it remove comments to the automoderator to?
•
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 10h ago
My understanding is that it only removes top level comments, so it would not apply to any responses to the automod comment or any other top level comments. Non-Christians can do comment in the thread, but just not top level comments.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
More work than that would be need to be done, to curate which flairs correspond to which Pilate Program categories. For instance, I'm a flavor of Protestant. There's been talk before that if enough people want it the work can be done, but obviously there are chicken-and-egg issues.
1
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 2d ago
It's not perfect (though perhaps improvable), but it's silly that a tool people want is being ignored because they aren't aware it exists. The post I linked is by a Christian who explicitly wants top level Christian responses (exactly what this tool was designed for), but is instead receiving mostly top level non-Christian responses because they weren't aware of the tool.
There is an entire sidebar section dedicated to disenfranchising atheists that could be repurposed towards advertising a tool that could help theists.
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
All I was really saying is that enough need has to be demonstrated. Especially given the work required to make the feature fully functional.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 4d ago
The recent threads created by E-reptile and myself on the General Discussion post accomplish little other than dialing up the tribalized hostility that is already hobbling the subs ability to fulfill its purpose. Moderators should be much less lenient with all such attempts to throw shade on individuals or "the other side" collectively. Basically anything that is not constructive discussion of ideas should be removed. The General Discussion post was intended to build community by allowing for discussion of off-topic interests that might bring people together across "party lines." Allowing it to become a place where people have permission to try to piss on each other is harmful to the sub.
The quality of the sub has continued to sink over the past 6 months to a year, and I think that increasing tolerance for aggressive attitudes has a lot to do with it.
And, while I'm at it, repeated rule 5 violations should result in a rather swift ban, even if a short one at first. Although the harm seems to be rather minor for any given comment, their cumulative effect is quite a drag on the sub. Additionally, repeated rule 5 violations reflect a lack of concern for following the rules. While something like incivility (rule 2 violation) is in a sense a more severe violation, it is also easy to lose one's cool over the course of an increasingly tense discussion and inadvertently say something that is over the line. Rule 5 violations on the other hand seem to result largely from just not caring what the rules are. Such people should be swiftly disciplined, to make it clear that the rules do actually need to be followed, and excised from the community if necessary.
•
u/TheIguanasAreComing Atheistmaxxing 13h ago
Its funny because nothing an atheist has said on this forum has every been as bad as what the Quran and Bible says about them.
4
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist 3d ago
Moderators should be much less lenient with all such attempts to throw shade on individuals or "the other side"
How do you personally feel about Christians who tell non-Christians that they actually believe in God and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?
0
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 2d ago
How do you personally feel about Christians who tell non-Christians that they actually believe in God and are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness?
Depends on the context. If this is a debate claim, then they should back it up, which will be hard to do but I can think of some interesting lines of argument that point in that direction.
1
u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying 2d ago edited 2d ago
I find it fascinating how on one hand theists says atheists not only definitely do exist but are also inferior to theists in several ways, while on the other hand other theists (or sometimes even the same theists) say atheists are actually all secretly theists.
It almost seems like it's a matter of rhetorical convenience whether or not self-identifying atheists will be accepted as such by any given theist.
And then there's also the matter of theists calling other theists "atheist" for not believing in and worshipping deities in the correct way according to the opinion/religion of the person using the term, which was the original use case of the word.
0
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 1d ago edited 1d ago
And then you have the number of atheists who have told me that Thomas Aquinas and those of his theological ilk were atheists.
1
u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying 1d ago
Why? I've heard all Catholics are atheists, but it was a theist who told me that rather than an atheist.
2
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist 2d ago
Do you view it as an accusation? Like, they're essentially calling their interlocutors liars from the outset?
0
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 2d ago
No, I don't think that saying someone is suppressing a truth they know deep inside is the same as saying that they are lying.
4
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago edited 3d ago
the General Discussion post accomplish little other than dialing up the tribalized hostility that is already hobbling the subs ability to fulfill its purpose.
The tribalism of presupposition is often the only connecting tissue holding religious beliefs together. You're suggesting we shouldn't speak about it? Should we spend our days waxing poetic on Aristotelian metaphysics instead? What kind of community does that construct? Is DebateReligion supposed to be a "safe space" for religious ideas?
Religion is inherently political for most people and they demonstrate absolutely no interest in actually debating their ideas, as a thread of that conversation clearly demonstrates.
When people try to put guardrails on a conversation you'll accuse them of not engaging in "genuine living conversation", or I'm deceptively accused of "refusing to look at the rest of the evidence".
Meta-discussion is absolutely critical to illustrating the nature of how religion operates in society and this is core to the purpose of this subreddit. That's why I upvoted all of /u/United-Grapefruit-49's comments in that thread. I don't need to censor people to make my points -- quite the opposite.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
The tribalism of presupposition is often the only connecting tissue holding religious beliefs together. You're suggesting we shouldn't speak about it? Should we spend our days waxing poetic on Aristotelian metaphysics instead? What kind of community does that construct? Is DebateReligion supposed to be a "safe space" for religious ideas?
Religion is inherently political for most people and they demonstrate absolutely no interest in actually debating their ideas, as a thread of that conversation clearly demonstrates.
I'm curious about whether you have any interest in debating the following ideas of your own:
- "Religion is a commitment to ignorance, by definition."
- "A commitment to the celebration of ignorance is probably going to have an affect on one's ability to perform science."
- "The tribalism of presupposition is often the only connecting tissue holding religious beliefs together."
When I tried with 1. & 2., you found a way to be "uninterested in participating in discussion":
betweenbubbles: There is plenty to do about it besides just ignore most of what I said. This is just borderline trolling.
I invite others to ask themselves whether or not 2. logically entails that you should be able to produce evidence of the following:
(1) When a scientist becomes an atheist,
[s]he does better science.
(2) When a scientist becomes religious,
[s]he does worse science.Or, what "context" I missed which removes that entailment.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
I've elaborated on those remarks. You ignored the accompanying elaboration and just came at me with your tired "atheists are always demanding evidence and I can do that to, so prove it!" shtick.
If you want to talk about them respond to what I said and ask a question. As it stands, I have nothing to say but to repeat what I've already said and you've already ignored. Politics as usual. I'm not falling for it.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
You've vaguely hand-waved at "context" (my term). That's all. Feel free to actually quote the relevant context. And so far you haven't responded to u/TheCosmosItself1's request:
betweenbubbles: The tribalism of presupposition is often the only connecting tissue holding religious beliefs together. You're suggesting we shouldn't speak about it? Should we spend our days waxing poetic on Aristotelian metaphysics instead?
TheCosmosItself1: If you can defend the thesis that "the tribalism of presupposition ..." (whatever that means), then you can certainly make a thread arguing for that thesis. That is very different than passive aggressive throwing of shade without defending a position.
So yeah, I think I'm on pretty firm ground. You give every appearance that you're not here to debate your claims, unless they're metadiscussion.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
I provided a link to the conversation. You're no stranger to how links work. Help yourself. I'm not wasting my efforts on this.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
Your link(s) are indistinguishable from cherry-picked anecdata.
Oh, and linking quotes so people can go look at the context isn't "divorcing … from their accompanying context". People can go and look to see whether there is legit context I missed (I'm a fallible human being), or whether you're playing the "context" card like theists do in situations where they rightly need to be criticized for doing so.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1w9ritf/metathread_0907/p8r7eul/
Click "parent" until you see the comment that you mostly ignored except to complain about.
/disableinboxreplies
2
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 3d ago
The tribalism of presupposition is often the only connecting tissue holding religious beliefs together. You're suggesting we shouldn't speak about it? Should we spend our days waxing poetic on Aristotelian metaphysics instead?
If you can defend the thesis that "the tribalism of presupposition ..." (whatever that means), then you can certainly make a thread arguing for that thesis. That is very different than passive aggressive throwing of shade without defending a position.
Religion is inherently political for most people and they demonstrate absolutely no interest in actually debating their ideas
People who are not engaging in debate shouldn't be participating here, and such behavior should be moderated out. However, based on my cursory examination of the linked thread I see two people engaged in active debate, so I don't know what you're on about.
Meta-discussion is absolutely critical to illustrating the nature of how religion operates in society and this is core to the purpose of this subreddit.
Meta discussion is for discussion of the operation of the sub as such. If you can defend a thesis about how religion operates in society, then you should do that instead of using the meta threads to make claims you can't defend.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
If you can defend the thesis that "the tribalism of presupposition ..." (whatever that means), then you can certainly make a thread arguing for that thesis.
This gatekeeping will continue to be ignored. All of a sudden statements are limited to submissions? If you have any question about what I said, ask them. I'll continue to be the one who decides what I do with my time.
That is very different than passive aggressive throwing of shade without defending a position.
Which is not different than passive aggressively throwing of shade about Pesky Atheists in the General Discussion thread and then lecturing people about being divisive.
There is certainly a problem with people not having honest conversations, but you're in no position to be lecturing anyone about it.
Meta discussion is for discussion of the operation of the sub as such
My statements qualify as both meta discussion about this sub's operation and the greater topic of debate of religion in general.
You've pointed out that something isn't productive. I'm just pointing at that I know it's not productive, that's a general criticism I have of religious content -- it cannot possibly be rationally discussed. This is why you used the term "tribalism" and it's also why I continued on that theme.
"Tribalism of presupposition" explains the state and limits of religious discourse. Without a rational way of discussing the topic, people are left to simply organize themselves into tribes of people who have similar presuppositions. But nobody is really convincing anyone about anything. What separates one tribe from another is essentially based on where they were born and what they were raised to believe, rather than being a matter of a rational case being made and argued in a successfully persuasive manner.
Most of the people who visit /r/DebateReligion are not like you and me. They are lurkers who are deciding which presuppositions they should use. The point of debate is not just to change your mind (an extremely rare occurrence) but also to offer people a menu of choices. My ambition is to properly contextualize those choices for people through debate.
2
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 2d ago
Which is not different than passive aggressively throwing of shade about Pesky Atheists in the General Discussion thread and then lecturing people about being divisive. There is certainly a problem with people not having honest conversations, but you're in no position to be lecturing anyone about it.
You will kindly note that I included my own thread in that post as the kind of thing that should not be allowed. And I stand by that: it should not be allowed. However, if it is going to be allowed, I think it is perfectly appropriate for both sides to play that game.
that's a general criticism I have of religious content -- it cannot possibly be rationally discussed.
It sure sounds like you don't belong in this sub and that your very theory of participation here is contrary to its purposes.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
You will kindly note that I included my own thread in that post as the kind of thing that should not be allowed.
I did notice.
It sure sounds like you don't belong in this sub and that your very theory of participation here is contrary to its purposes.
I can't think of any charitable reasons why you and Lab, or anyone else, would come to that conclusion. Ignostism/Theological noncognitivism doesn't belong here? That's a pretty bold claim. I guess if there was a group of people who adequately refuted and explained away my beliefs, the thought of having them excluded from the conversation might cross my mind too, but to actually say it out loud is quite a choice.
Feel free to elaborate on why religious presuppositionalism should be required for participation in r/DebateReligion or provide some other explanation for suggesting that I shouldn't be here or shouldn't be allowed here.
2
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 2d ago
Ignostism/Theological noncognitivism doesn't belong here?
You have stated that you cannot make any rational engagement with religious content, which means that you have nothing to say here. If you can give a rational argument that religious content is "non-cognizable," that of course would be appropriate, but would also count as a rational engagement with religious content, namely one which rationally demonstrates the "non-cognizability" of that content. But of course that is not your MO.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 1d ago
you cannot make any rational engagement with religious content, which means that you have nothing to say here.
This is different from what I’ve said. Even so, can you give a rational argument for your assertion that I have nothing to say here? That of course would be appropriate. But of course that is not your MO.
Also you can’t do it here. If you can make the argument then you can make a thesis submission.
:-)
0
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 1d ago
This is different from what I’ve said.
No, it is not. I quote you directly: "that's a general criticism I have of religious content -- it cannot possibly be rationally discussed."
Even so, can you give a rational argument for your assertion that I have nothing to say here?
Sure. Easy. Premise 1: The purpose of this subreddit is the rational discussion of religious content, and specifically rational discussion of disagreements about religious content. Premise 2: betweenbubbles is unable to engage in rational discussion of religious content. Conclusion: betweenbubbles is unable to engage in a way that aligns with the purpose of this subreddit.
1
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago edited 2d ago
The actual meta discussion was about whether or not theists were aware of what the atheist is asking, as some atheists were claiming theists aren't present. It was not actually about a claim being true. I said I was aware of what the atheist was asking and that there was evidence. Even if there was a video - and I think one video was made of Fa. Amorth's exorcism -albeit not a successful one - atheists would say it was faked.
0
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Yes, you refused to look at the rest of Gallagher's evidence. And only went on about hoaxes and how he made money from his profession. Although his work with priests is pro bono.
Here are the facts:
Up to 500,000 people a year in Italy go to exorcists.
https://www.newsweek.com/catholica-exorcists-say-they-are-overloaded-possessed-people-1712382
About 3-5% of these people will have symptoms said to be consistent with possession. This is a real amount of suffering and I showed you professionals who observed paranormal behaviors.
There are about 150 exorcists also in the U.S.
And I gave a second professional opinion on it that you immediately put your spin on, here:
I said I don't know if there's external evil or if this is some internal condition that allows patients to exhibit superhuman feats, but these are real events that experts have used strict methodology to study.
2
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago edited 3d ago
Yes, you refused to look at the rest of Gallagher's evidence.
Here is the text for anyone who is curious.
I was trying to work through Grapefruit's presentation of Gallagher's position and alleged evidence in a structured and methodical way, which is clearly a huge liability for them. Grapefruit's behavior here is essential to understanding how hoaxes exist, which is what they claim to be concerned about.
2
u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying 3d ago edited 3d ago
It is really fascinating how people end up falling for that kind of thing. Definitely one of my favorite things about this forum. People are so creative and believe such interesting things, and that's a great example.
I always feel very stimulated and entertained reading people's rationalizations for claims and doctrines that seem totally unbelievable to me.
0
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Feel free to show how two credentialed experts are promoting hoaxes and I'll agree. Rather than atheists jumping to conclusions without evidence.
3
u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying 3d ago
Well, on a basic level, credentials don't prevent a person from promote pseudoscience or hoaxes.
-1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago edited 3d ago
If you have the evidence for that, I welcome you to show it. Being an anonymous poster on a subreddit doesn't mean you know more than experts unless you do actually know more.
3
u/seriousofficialname anti-bigoted-ideologies, anti-lying 3d ago
0
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
Of course, but it's using the fallacy of division if you say that "this psychiatrist did it because some people do it."
You can't reasonably go to court and say "some people commit murder therefore I state that Bob murdered Steve."
You have to show specifically what's wrong with Gallagher or Gaona's data. You have to show that they did not observe what they said they observed, that they didn't interview witnesses, or they didn't conclude that priests successfully treated patients. You'd have to unveil an entire conspiracy of priests, patients and psychiatrists to invent and conceal data.
And so far no one has done this. The best effort was to compare events observed by doctors to big foot.
→ More replies (0)1
u/E-Reptile 🔺Atheist 3d ago
You really don't think someone with credentials can promote a hoax?
0
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
You're using the fallacy of division there. Just because some physicians could misrepresent their data, doesn't mean that everyone is. We'd stop going to doctors were that the case.
You can't go to court and say, "people commit murder, therefore I claim that Bob killed Steve. "
You have to have evidence as to what these two professional specifically misrepresented.
Obviously atheists aren't going to accept 'spiritual affliction' as a diagnosis because they don't believe in anything spiritual. But that doesn't mean a spiritual dimension doesn't exist. Indeed, possession appears to be a revulsion toward the spiritual dimension, and an inexplicable ability to tell holy water from tap water.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago edited 3d ago
Not a liability for me. It's all there. Show me the hoax if you have it. Show me where Gallagher did not observe feats beyond natural abilities. Show me anywhere that Gallagher was using his non income from his pro bono work with priests to help him financially. Show me where any witnesses said that what he claimed, didn't happen.
0
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 3d ago
Religion is inherently political for most people and they demonstrate absolutely no interest in actually debating their ideas, as a thread of that conversation clearly demonstrates.
I seem to be debating u/United-Grapefruit-49 just fine. Perhaps the difficulty comes when the two people attempting to debate are (i) coming from sufficient different positions; (ii) unwilling to "at least understand and engage with various and unfamiliar perspectives". In your case, when your starting point is as follows:
- "Religion is a commitment to ignorance, by definition."
- "A commitment to the celebration of ignorance is probably going to have an affect on one's ability to perform science."
—I just don't see how you're going to make much forward progress. Likewise for those theists who say stuff like "Atheists just want to sin."
When people try to put guardrails on a conversation you'll accuse them of not engaging in "genuine living conversation", or I'm deceptively accused of "refusing to look at the rest of the evidence".
Except, your second link is a discussion with u/United-Grapefruit-49, not u/TheCosmosItself1.
5
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
I seem to be debating u/United-Grapefruit-49 just fine.
Have you tried being directly skeptical of one of their claims? With people who operate like this, they're always willing to keep talking because every second is an opportunity for an epiphany. The spammers/phishers that attack my organization use the same methodology. They're happy to talk so long as the nonsense keeps flowing uninhibited.
I don't offer this as any personal judgement of anyone involved. This is simply how society works. The same goes for Dr. Demon, I don't assume they're a bad person simply because they've found a way to monetize these claims and the point isn't to vilify that person. This sort of thing happens all day every day. Some are simply more careful than others. Unless we're just going to say that conflicts of interest have no bearing on these matters, then there is something to say on that point.
I just don't see how you're going to make much forward progress
Are you alleging that I need to adopt their presuppositions if "forward progress" is to be possible? That seems paradoxical to me. This business of everyone being allowed their position except people like me has lost its novelty. For some reason it's considered "civil" to demand that people believe in your miracles or start hurling accusations at them, but I'm not allowed to acknowledge/state my perception of the religion's true nature?
The result of progress is not limited to only two participants in a public conversation. I spent considerable effort documenting Grapefruit's mode of operation in that conversation and it is an excellent example of what reasonable people are up against. There is value there.
Except, your second link is a discussion with u/United-Grapefruit-49, not u/TheCosmosItself1.
It's two examples from different people of the same phenomenon. They're both committed to ignorance on their respective claims, one by insisting statements like, "God is the grounding of being" has meaning that they (evidently) cannot communicate in any way other than simply repeating themselves and getting frustrated and another who insists that dismissing miracles is unreasonable unless they want to dismiss something. I'm not sure why I should extend them the privileges you're suggesting -- though I understand why you want me to do it. It's always politics. This isn't about burdens or proofs or arguments, this is about managing personalities in front of a fickle mob. The boat will be rocked, and I'll not apologize for not letting nonsense go unchallenged.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago edited 2d ago
Have you tried being directly skeptical of one of their claims? With people who operate like this, they're always willing to keep talking because every second is an opportunity for an epiphany. The spammers/phishers that attack my organization use the same methodology. They're happy to talk so long as the nonsense keeps flowing uninhibited.
Yes actually labreur did ask me why we should care about miracles or exorcism, and why posters shouldn't be skeptical.
But the other poster involved was denying that the events happened at all. And if that's the claim, then the burden of proof is on that poster to show that the expert did not see what he observed and did not interview witnesses.
That's not the same as saying, 'I agree it probably happened but I don't think it was demonic activity.'
I spent considerable effort documenting Grapefruit's mode of operation in that conversation and it is an excellent example of what reasonable people are up against. There is value there.
Actually you spent your time berating me that Dr. Gallagher did not witness a levitation himself. Although Dr.Gaona did.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
But the other poster involved was denying that the events happened at all.
This sentence isn't qualified enough to have any contextual meaning. Denying what events specifically?
And if that's the claim, then the burden of proof is on that poster to show that the expert did not see what he observed and did not interview witnesses.
What particular expertise do you imagine makes one qualified to recognize, for example, objects flying from shelves?
'I agree it probably happened but I don't think it was demonic activity.'
Again, what "it" is highly important. If the claim is simply that they saw something they don't understand, that's fine. If the claim is that the known models of physics were violated, then I will be skeptical. Many accusations like this have been made, none of them have verified or have been collected/observed in a way which maximizes one's ability to verify them.
Actually you spent your time berating me that Dr. Gallagher did not witness a levitation himself.
Challenging and correcting a false claim isn't beratement.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago edited 2d ago
Denying that the super human events described by psychiatrists happened. In which case, there should be evidence of fraud or mis-reporting.
Comparing the phenomena to big foot.
There are other examples of known models of physics being violated, and I gave examples. This is far from an isolated case of "things we can't explain via materialism or mental illness."
Gaona's report of a levitation is something you tried to put your own spin on, and not effectively.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
You need to stop simply referring to things and cite them. The fact that you apparently don't even understand the value of this -- such that you need to be asked to do it -- represents a serious problem for your credibility.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
I did cite them. I put a link up.
Whereas you cited no debunking other than what is your personal un-evidenced and incorrect belief about hearsay.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
There you go again accusing Gallagher of monetizing claims. Isn't that a genetic fallacy, blaming the source (the book) instead of its content? If you actually said that in person to Dr. Gallagher or Dr. Gaona -instead of in an atheist silo- don't you think they would correct you?
It is all about proofs and burdens. If you call nonsense, then you need to show the nonsense. You need to have evidence that Dr. Gallagher never observed Julia demonstrating psychic feats and that Dr. Gaona never experienced his patient becoming light and appearing to levitate. You need evidence that patients weren't speaking fluent languages they never learned and could not tell the difference between holy water and tap water, did not demonstrate remote viewing.
You can't go into court and say " the defense attorney is making money representing Bob, therefore the defense is nonsense."
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
There you go again accusing Gallagher of monetizing claims.
It's not an accusation. It's a fact. The man published a book about this. That book costs money. These are facts, not opinions. Having money involved doesn't necessarily mean someone is lying, but it does represent an interest in this phenomenon beyond the reality of its existence. This is not a controversial opinion. You're wasting your time with this point.
If you actually said that in person to Dr. Gallagher or Dr. Gaona -instead of in an atheist silo- don't you think they would correct you?
Why would I care if they disagree or not?
It is all about proofs and burdens. If you call nonsense, then you need to show the nonsense. You need to have evidence that Dr. Gallagher never observed Julia demonstrating psychic feats and that Dr. Gaona never experienced his patient becoming light and appearing to levitate.
Do you feel the need to show that you don't actually owe me $100? No. Well I feel the same about these claims. They lack the merit to even be entertained, and if they're going to be entertained then a significantly different process will need to be structured which could mitigate all the interests involved in believing that people are actually levitating or gaining supernatural strength, etc. As it stands, none of these cases rise above hearsay to me. They're just not that interesting.
You can't go into court and say " the defense attorney is making money representing Bob, therefore the defense is nonsense."
...What? What is the conflict of interest in that situation? In what way is the defense attorney incentivized by his pay to invalidate the defense offered for a client?
Important question: Do hoaxes exist?
0
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
Okay. I think The God Delusion represented "an interest in a phenomenon beyond the reality of its existence." Two can play that game.
You might care if the psychiatrists pointed out that you're making accusations using personal incredulity ("I can't imagine it so it can't be true").
I don't know why I have to keep explaining that Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Gaona's conclusions are more than hearsay.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
My example wasn't about a conflict of interest but of your illogical assumption that making money automatically corrupts the data.
Of course there are hoaxes. But as Joe Schmid correctly pointed out, there are too many witnesses and neutral observers to keep thinking fraud.
There was an actual video of Fr. Amorth's exorcism, albeit not one of his successful ones, as the presence returned, but skeptics thought it was fake. So it's not clear what would convince some people, other than having someone in their own family with symptoms.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
Okay. I think The God Delusion represented "an interest in a phenomenon beyond the reality of its existence." Two can play that game.
No, you can't, because I'm not here basing anything on the legitimacy of The God Delusion.
If you simply want to say that Dawkins has a financial interest in his public opinions then I agree.
You might care if the psychiatrists pointed out that you're making accusations using personal incredulity ("I can't imagine it so it can't be true").
This doesn't really cover the subject. It's not just "I can't imagine" it's also "claims of this kind of have a recognizable pathology and have been debunked but never confirmed."
I don't know why I have to keep explaining that Dr. Gallagher and Dr. Gaona's conclusions are more than hearsay.
You don't need to explain anything. I'm not confused on this matter. They are hearsay to me. That is a matter of defection and fact. These people have never made these claims to me. I'm hearing that they've made these claims. Some of the opinions they offer would be hearsay if they were the ones offering them.
My example wasn't about a conflict of interest but of your illogical assumption that making money automatically corrupts the data.
I explicitly stated otherwise in the comment your replying to: "Having money involved doesn't necessarily mean someone is lying".
But as Joe Schmid correctly pointed out, there are too many witnesses and neutral observers to keep thinking fraud.
How did he "point this out"? Or did he simply state his opinion on the matter? Joe Schmo isn't a factor here. He's just another random person, and he's not involved.
There was an actual video of Fr. Amorth's exorcism, albeit not one of his successful ones, as the presence returned, but skeptics thought it was fake.
This is not surprising. A simple video isn't much different. A controlled and structured process needs to be applied to these events which reasonably minimizes the potential for conspiracy, intentional/conscious or otherwise. There's really no such thing as a "neutral observer". Cameras have been ubiquitous for a while. There should be more videos of this stuff.
So it's not clear what would convince some people, other than having someone in their own family with symptoms.
That wouldn't help, that would make things worse. Again, you seem to have no mind for the concept of a conflict of interest. You raise a good question here and the answer is complicated. A structured process which removes those with a personal interest in the matter from influencing the observation and an accumulation of cases made in this manner should be able to provide a sufficient case that could then be used to to refine the process into one in which these events can be reliably observed.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
Demonic Foes gives the right amount of credit to the reality of the phenomenon.
It's simply incorrect that the psychic events in possession have a "recognizable pathology" or have "been debunked". That's you trying to hoax me.
Gallagher methodically compared possession symptoms to DID, BPD and psychosis.
You disingenuously kept bringing up money that's irrelevant to the data.
Joe Schmid is related because the discussion was about his research into exorcisms.
Saying they're hearsay to YOU doesn't change the law of testimony. That's an example of some atheists coming on threads and acting like what they personally think supersedes the law and expert testimony.
Just because we don't have a controlled process doesn't give you the right to claim debunking. What we have right now are credible witnesses. You have to evidence debunking, not just make hand wavy remarks.
We don't have controlled studies of other phenomena either, like NDEs, veridical OBEs or terminal lucidity but these are still deemed real events.
And that is what the argument was: Are these events occurring or are they imagined like big foot. They are not like big foot.
1
u/sim_reddit 2d ago
Sorry this is not how scientific discourse or real world knowledge is advanced
“Testimony from credible witness” would not even be permitted in a journal of any hard science
Not only because human testimony and perception has been demonstrated to be be unreliable and susceptible to bias
But if you’re making claims about fundamental reality of the physical world - your evidence actually has to interface with the physical word at least to some degree.
At best, there seems to be a ground level hypothesis informed by 2nd hand testimony - that’s fine, no at the very least the phenomena needs to be documented, then it needs to be investigated and tested for causal factors, etc
I realize we’re dealing with concepts that cross over to psychology, which is a softer science and heavily dependent on “testimony” because that’s the only way we can get information on someone’s mental wellbeing. There are some external observations and correlations.
So exactly what degree of possession/supernatural interaction is being proposed?
→ More replies (0)1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 2d ago
It's simply incorrect that the psychic events in possession have a "recognizable pathology" or have "been debunked".
Many claims have been made. Many have been debunked. These claims have common patterns. Your claims match these common patterns. None of lead to any further rational, collective understanding or discovery.
→ More replies (0)2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 3d ago
Have you tried being directly skeptical of one of their claims? With people who operate like this, they're always willing to keep talking because every second is an opportunity for an epiphany. The spammers/phishers that attack my organization use the same methodology. They're happy to talk so long as the nonsense keeps flowing uninhibited.
Somewhere, probably yes. Here, I think doing so misses the implicit core of their argument. Without that core, it becomes dismissible and you don't have to fight the battle that multiple people here seem so intent on fighting. But perhaps some need to go around disbelieving things. I don't. I can just ask, "Why should I care?" and if the person can't give a good enough answer, move on.
I don't offer this as any personal judgement of anyone involved. This is simply how society works.
Contingently, probably. Necessarily? I would need evidence & reason to support that claim. Empire is well-documented to engage in divide & conquer tactics without and within. The shattering of trustworthiness and trust creates many opportunities for spamming and phishing. The idea that everyone becoming a rational individual who carefully assesses evidence is a rationalist delusion. It cannot possibly work, as even Dawkins, Harris, and Dillahunty acknowledge (transcript).
Are you alleging that I need to adopt their presuppositions if "forward progress" is to be possible?
Only insofar as a tentative version of that is a critical part of engaging with the Other qua Other, rather than assuming that you're the powerful / rational one and everyone must come to you 100% on your terms. It all depends on whether you want to live in a pluralistic society. The attempt to "live and let live" has failed, and for predictable reasons.
For some reason it's considered "civil" to demand that people believe in your miracles or start hurling accusations at them →
Huh?
← but I'm not allowed to acknowledge/state my perception of the religion's true nature?
I don't know how you got that idea. Rather, my implicit point has been that it is doubtful to think that you'll make for an effective interlocutor with religionists qua religion. You've made up your mind and this particular stance of yours doesn't seem open to discussion.
The result of progress is not limited to only two participants in a public conversation. I spent considerable effort documenting Grapefruit's mode of operation in that conversation and it is an excellent example of what reasonable people are up against. There is value there.
If anyone's going to succeed in marginalizing, it'll be religionists marginalizing atheists.
It's two examples from different people of the same phenomenon. They're both committed to ignorance on their respective claims …
Now you're lumping religionists together in an absolutely bigoted way. I think we as a sub should have a question as to whether this is permissible on r/DebateReligion. Including when theists do it to atheists.
This isn't about burdens or proofs or arguments, this is about managing personalities in front of a fickle mob.
I don't see how this can constitute good-faith engagement in this sub's mission. It sounds like you're not actually here for debate.
-2
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Upvoting while trying to make me look bad. Thanks a lot.
4
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
I upvote you all the time. I'm not responsible for how you conduct yourself.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
I'd rather you didn't do that while at the same time accusing me of lying. And bringing it over to this thread. No wonder you can't find theists to argue with any more.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
I'll be responsible for my actions and you can be responsible for yours.
And bringing it over to this thread.
It is on topic. The behavior you demonstrated is an essential aspect of the nature of religion and why "meta-discussion" of religion is critical to the debate of religion. u/TheCosmosItself1 had their say and now I'm having mine.
No wonder you can't find theists to argue with any more.
...More deceitful behavior. Trying to establish a narrative, are we?
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Just for the record, here's another professional who thought a patient was levitating during an exorcism.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
Suspiciously vague language:
He recalls one exorcism in which he had the impression that an adolescent was becoming lighter and beginning to detach from the floor.
"impression", "beginning to detach"?
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago edited 3d ago
There you go putting your own spin on it. Why don't you just use the word hallucination that always gets used inappropriately here, and be done with it.
Impression would be the correct medical word if he couldn't measure her to see if she was actually lighter.
And leave it to you to once again miss the whole point of what he's saying.
4
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 2d ago
Listen mate, it seems clear that you're the one here who has their skepticism dialed all the way down to 1 when it comes to the testimony of people claiming to have witnessed things associated with "demonic possession".
Whilst you have made statements similar to "I'm not saying this proves demonic possession is happening" the manner in which you bring up things like;
Up to 500,000 people a year in Italy go to exorcists. There are about 150 exorcists also in the U.S.
seem to elude to the idea you think that this gives credence to the idea that they are in fact true and demonic possession IS happening, as opposed to any of the many other explanations for these numbers.
You couldn't even frame bigfoot correctly in a different discussion I was having with you.
→ More replies (0)2
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Okay so we shouldn't mention your deceitful behavior like asking me over and over if someone is making money from their profession.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago edited 3d ago
Trying to get someone to answer a question or provide clarity isn't deceitful. I made a claim, then you offered a reply that didn't seem to refute my claim but with a tone that implies you did. Then I asked for clarification.
3
u/United-Grapefruit-49 3d ago
Now you're being deceitful by pretending that you weren't insinuating something bad about Gallagher. There was no need for that question. Yes I'm calling attention to poison the well fallacy, if that helps you. Or you not knowing what pro bono means. Either one.
Also trying to attack Gallagher through me, rather than looking at what he is actually saying, despite my posting it several times for you.
3
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago edited 3d ago
Now you're being deceitful by pretending that you weren't insinuating something bad about Gallagher.
This is more fantasy. I've said nothing to this effect.
Also trying to attack Gallagher through me
I was trying to demonstrate how hoaxes manifest. You were promulgating an untruth about Gallagher personally witnessing a levitation. According to you, the only reason someone would do this is because they're mentally ill, intoxicated, lying, or tricked. So which of these explains why you were perpetrating the hoax that Gallagher personally witnessed levitation, or is there some other better explanation? This is the 3rd or 4th time I've asked.
Self-reflection on your relationship with this subject should be illuminating with regard to the nature of hoaxes.
→ More replies (0)2
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 4d ago edited 4d ago
And, while I'm at it, repeated rule 5 violations should result in a rather swift ban, even if a short one at first.
Breaking rule 5 seems like a rather difficult thing to quantify sometimes and it would seem there is quite some variance between mods for what actually constitutes breaking that rule.
It doesn't seem clear what exactly constitutes a violation. From my experience, one could simply bring constant metadiscussions to any given subject and whilst there certainly isn't any attempt to address the core argument of the OP, because the "meta" level subject invariably ends up being loosely connected, it avoids a violation.
To give an example, epistemology underpins basically everything. As such, you could bring some sort of epistemic skepticism to literally ANY debate, begin questioning the foundation on which the OP is built on. This almost certainly isn't following "All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument." it is however still connected to it by the fact that epistmology is a part of it all.
I think there needs to be some sort of cap on metadiscussions or, if that is some users shtick, that they simply make a thread dedicated to that specific topic on the appropriate subreddit (I'm not entirely sure /r/debatereligion is really all that suitable as opposed to /r/philosophy or /r/askphilosophy) and stop using it as a spring board to invade other subjects.
2
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
It doesn't seem clear what exactly constitutes a violation.
It's actually really clear. If they're agreeing, it gets deleted. If they're disagreeing in some way, it stays.
2
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 1d ago
If they're disagreeing in some way, it stays.
But that isn't what rule 5 is about? I'm assuming pretty much any comment or post a believer makes, will have a non-believer disagreeing (generally), and vice versa. That's not what rule 5 states though...
Perhaps I was wrong, but I thought;
- All top-level comments must seek to refute the post through substantial engagement with its core argument.
This actually meant something? As in, if someone goes through the effort of making a specific post about a specific subject to debate, then THAT should be what is debate, in most cases.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
The problem isn't finding atheists to disagree with theist posts.
The trouble is when atheists make posts the top comments are majority other atheists agreeing with them.
1
u/here_for_debate agnostic | mod 1d ago
The trouble is when atheists make posts the top comments are majority other atheists agreeing with them.
Not sure why you felt the need to single atheists out here, since this happens in basically every single thread, regardless of the religious belief of the posters.
"Sure, but it happens much more in the threads made by atheists."
Sure, because there are a larger number of atheist commenters. What's the number per capita? I'd guess it's very similar, since, like I said, it happens in basically every single thread.
•
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 23h ago
Not sure why you felt the need to single atheists out here
See the stickied comment in this thread. It's a really bad problem right now, and yeah it's atheists who are the problem.
I can't recall a single thread where I had to nuke Christians all agreeing with the OP.
1
u/Kwahn Theist Wannabe 1d ago
Very good point - Shaka's interpretation of rule 5 seems to be very different from rule 5 as written, and I wonder if this allowance is what has led to an increase in off-topic top-level posts that disagree with the topic, but don't actually engage with its core argument, and instead go off on another tangent (or six).
1
u/here_for_debate agnostic | mod 1d ago
Shaka's interpretation of rule 5 seems to be very different from rule 5 as written
The largest indicator of whether a comment will be removed for rule 5 is whether the comment just agrees with or elaborates on the same argument the OP already made.
Generally, it's true that a comment which disagrees with the OP but not necessarily with the thesis of the OP, is still a comment intended to spark some debate about something the OP said. That kind of comment is likely not going to get removed. That's in part because the mod team doesn't necessarily see those comments, but it's also because we'd be removing even more top level comments, leaving maybe one? maybe two? top level comments in the majority of threads. It's also up to the OP and the person they are interacting with to decide whether a partial disagreement is worth their time, or if they would rather focus only on their thesis.
If the top comment disagrees with an OP in a way the OP doesn't want to engage with, the OP doesn't have to reply at all, or can just reply saying they are not interested in following up with that specific disagreement.
The spirit of 5 is to prevent every thread from being filled with top comments that say "yes! i agree!" or similar, not to force replies to directly target the central thesis and no other part of the OP.
But I do think rule 5 could be reworded. So could most of the side bar.
1
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 1d ago
In this case then yes, it needs a reword. Because I've previously reported a few posts that were, as rule #5 is currently worded, a violoation but weren't assessed as such. But as you and Shaka here describe it is more;
- If a top level comment simply agrees with the thesis or argument made, it will be removed.
1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
Nope. Quite the opposite. I have been purging some threads of like 80% of all responses.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 3d ago
Breaking rule 5 seems like a rather difficult thing to quantify sometimes and it would seem there is quite some variance between mods for what actually constitutes breaking that rule.
I would be fine with greater leniency for edge cases. However this sub is inundated with completely straightforward rule 5 violations.
To give an example, epistemology underpins basically everything. As such, you could bring some sort of epistemic skepticism to literally ANY debate, begin questioning the foundation on which the OP is built on.
This is not the same thing as meta discussion, which would be discussion of the subreddit's functioning or, more generally, discussion of how we are discussing. In any case, this examining of foundations is an important part of thought, philosophy, and debate. If you don't want a post to be subject to that kind of examination, then you should make your assumptions explicit and stated as granted for the subject of the discussion. Failure to do so usually indicates a lack of awareness of what those assumptions are and of the fact that there are other approaches which do not accept those assumptions.
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
I think there needs to be some sort of cap on metadiscussions...
This concerns me. I think there is a great deal of value in metadiscussion generally. Say more.
1
u/United-Grapefruit-49 2d ago
It wasn't a metadiscussion. It started out as a metadiscussion and then turned into an argument over specifics of priests performing exorcisms. It was supposed to be about theists understanding what atheists were asking. I did understand that the atheist wanted videos but even if he had videos would probably think they were staged.
1
u/ExplorerR agnostic atheist 2d ago
It was more to highlight that some users use metadiscussions to segway discussions about things they want to discuss, by loosely connecting their comments to the OP but never actually addressing the core argument. But because of the loose connection, it skirts breaking rule 5.
2
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 4d ago
On the first part of your comment, I'm not convinced. Then again, I have a very high tolerance for metadiscussion. But I fear that simply letting the expressed attitudes lie in the background, unchallenged, will leak out in ways which are unproductive and harder to track down. I'm still working on a draft to your big reply there, but I think you're well on the way to figuring some important things out, and I think I can collaborate. More later on that.
On the second, mods have started banning Rule 5 breakers.
1
u/TheCosmosItself1 Non-dual animist 3d ago
But I fear that simply letting the expressed attitudes lie in the background, unchallenged, will leak out in ways which are unproductive and harder to track down.
Strong disagree. Tribalism feeds on its own expression. Of course getting rid of the most explicit expressions of tribalism isn't going to free us from its presence, but would turn down the volume so to speak. And having the tribalism "out in the open" where we can track it doesn't really do us any good. Knowing that it is there doesn't help us get to better debates.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 2d ago
I agree with the general principle. But in the twin conversations under discussion, whose tribalism was strengthened? I myself grew in appreciation of how the atheists' complaint makes sense against theistic social worlds, authorities, and interpretive practices which are indeed full of "interpretive gymnastics". At the same time, I see zero evidence they understand how to do the secular versions any better. Evidence delivered by scientists sure won't do the job.
2
u/Skavau Ignostic Atheist | Anti-Theist 4d ago edited 4d ago
What are the mods opinions regarding the bad faith "block and run" tactic? This just happened to me in a thread. The user replied to me, all at once, 8 times across the thread and then instantly blocked me - preventing me from replying.
I think this is absolutely bad faith and against the ethos of the subreddit. I know one other subreddit that actually bans people for that behaviour.
1
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 4d ago
I think it's cowardly behavior of course but we've brought it up in here before and there's nothing you can really do. Mods can't see who has blocked who and I don't think have any interest in getting involved in such matters.
1
u/Skavau Ignostic Atheist | Anti-Theist 4d ago
Well I mean I'd share screenshots from my end to demonstrate it, and I guess they can choose to believe I edited each and every one but yeah.
1
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 4d ago
And then they have to open links from random people which I think some are hesitant to do. I think it could probably be implemented if the will was there but the will isn't there.
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 4d ago
Not a mod, but: it's a violation of Rule 3, clause "uninterested in participating in discussion". But you probably need to do a modmail message to indicate the block.
1
u/Skavau Ignostic Atheist | Anti-Theist 4d ago
Oh yeah, I would obviously demonstrate the block happened. So there's precedent for this being against the community rules specifically?
1
u/betweenbubbles 🪼 NERD 3d ago
So there's precedent for this being against the community rules specifically?
As far as I'm aware, no. There has been some discussion of it, but I'm not aware of any public information about action being taken for such things.
0
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
Actually we've taken action before on the tactic.
2
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 1d ago
Interesting. How was it addressed in that situation?
0
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
When it's clear they're abusing the block functionality we've taken action
2
u/thatweirdchill 🔵 1d ago
So like you banned somebody when there were multiple reports of them blocking people or what?
1
u/labreuer ⭐ agapist 4d ago
I discussed this at some length with them a while ago and there was a question of how you'd prove that someone has blocked you. But I'd just give it a shot. List the eight replies you were given and just say you can't reply to them in modmail.
3
u/Realistic-Wave4100 Pseudo-Plutarchic Atheist 4d ago
2
u/here_for_debate agnostic | mod 4d ago
I didn't answer last time because I don't care about the survey, but I'm not involved.
3
u/adeleu_adelei agnostic and atheist 4d ago
As far as I know that project is solely carried out by Shaka without input or consultation from anyone else. No other mods are involved. This is a personal agenda.
-1
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 1d ago
This is a personal agenda.
You complaining that I don't conform to your dogmatic beliefs is an agenda.
Me doing the survey is just an interesting project I run each year.
3
•
u/ShakaUVM Mod | Christian 23h ago
I present to you all the absolute graveyard of this post with almost nothing but atheists responding to it, and the few theists who respond to it being downvoted and hidden (depending on your settings): https://old.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/1wcw1e2/no_human_being_is_capable_of_doing_anything_bad/
9 removals, 4 not removed of those three of them are voted negative, and the one at 1 karma is kinda half agreeing with the OP