Atheist In the Dungeon Addendum
One last post responding to Gavin Alexander's arguments
Updated 2/15/24
Now, I don't like it when people make false assumptions in general. But to do so via the "Argument From Silence" fallacy, especially when the person has asked for proof, was provided with it, and downright refused to examine it because it wasn't handed to them directly is not arguing in good faith. And it wasn't given to them directly for a valid reason: YouTube sometimes bans YouTube video links in the comments section. The evidence in question was a playlist of videos containing evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus.
Here are screenshots of the thread proving my point.
To prove that Mr. Paladin's method of presenting evidence is valid and permissible given that YouTube does ban links in the comments section, I have two videos that I took myself.
As for Gavin's argument "If not, then you have no grasp on what you're talking about and would rather let someone do the talking for you. If that is the case, you shouldn't be here challenging someone," here's why that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
To help my argument, I'll let Joe Schmid explain what evidence is because he can explain it a lot better than I can, even though I do understand it myself.
So go to the 6:29 mark and he'll do a demonstration of what evidence is.
So there you have it: evidence is just more probability or expectation of one argument being true over the opposing one.
With that in mind, let's examine why offering to present evidence for the resurrection of Jesus from a third party can actually be a valid form of argumentation.
First off, it meets the definition as Joe explained it.
Why is that?
Well, the first video after the introduction video presents the historical evidence for the Resurrection. There were 500 witnesses to the Resurrection.
So it's more expected that they were the telling truth than that they were lying. Why is this more likely?
Considering that many people have been killed for their Christian faith over the centuries, we can conclude people don't willingly die for something they know or believe to be a lie.
You have the right to not give Mr. Alexander evidence and tell him that you'd rather not give him evidence. But please use assertive "I" statements. Don't accuse him of not debating in good faith. Do not let his false assumptions about why you didn't give him evidence push you around.
I make an effort to avoid uses of the Ad Hominem and Poisoning the Well fallacies. Mr. Alexander has said that countering the dissemination and adulation of ideologies that are intrinsically harmful to LGBTQ+ people is one of his hobbies. Here's the thread in which he said so:
So give a bit of context, this is after I told him and another user "that's enough," and acknowledged my part in contributing to the argument. I was encouraging both Mr. Alexander and the other user to make time for humor and a hobby. And I said, "I will, too," thus committing to making time for humor and my focused interests as a sign that I was engaging in good faith. And I made good on that commitment by working on a painting of Pope Francis meeting Maverick from the Top Gun films. I got the idea to do a series of paintings of fictional characters I like meeting the Pope after seeing a pic of him meeting Spider-Man.
Not only did Mr. Alexander reveal that countering the spread and acclaim of "idealogies that are intrinsically harmful to LGBTQ+ people" is one of his hobbies, but he opted to continue engaging in that hobby, even though the whole point of my encouragement to make time for humor and a hobby was to defuse the situation I had helped escalate and have him and the other user make time for self-care away from the comments section of that video. He read the room and deliberately ignored my suggestion to go do something else.
So let this be a heads up for everyone else: just because you're cool with what you're doing doesn't mean you should continue doing it, especially if you've read the room and that reading of the room indicates that others are not cool with what you're doing. If that is the case, the decent and courteous thing to do is to stop engaging in the hobby that others are not cool with and redirect your attention to another hobby.
Do you think I'm unsympathetic to the longings of gay people? Do you think I don't empathize with the desire to find true love? Do you think I'm unaffected emotionally whenever I see Pete and Chasten Buttigieg look at each other in that loving couple way? Do you think I was emotionally unaffected when I saw pictures of Sir Elton and his "spouse" during the concert I went to?
My answer to all those questions is an emphatic no. I can tell you that I totally sympathize with gay people and their longings, even though I'm straight. I do empathize with the longing for true love. Whenever I see Secretary Pete and Chasten look at each other in that loving couple kind of way, it tugs on my heartstrings. When I saw those pictures of Sir Elton and his "husband" during the concert, it tugged on my heartstrings.
But despite my personal feelings, I cannot in good conscience condone homosexual acts or same-sex "marriage." I just can't do it. My conscience forbids it.
My focused interests are unusual in their intensity and focus, which is not uncommon for people with autism. But they're also how I process and understand the world around me. So when I walk into IKEA, I start thinking about Christine Daaé from Phantom because she's Swedish and IKEA is a Swedish store. But my thoughts about Christine while I'm shopping at IKEA don't hurt anyone because I keep them to myself. Also, when my sister and her family are around, she tells me that I have to be 007 and Mission: Impossible level quiet when my little nephew is asleep because he's easily woken up by household noises. She mentions 007 and Mission: Impossible because they draw on two of my focused interests to help me understand how quiet I need to be when my nephew is sleeping. But her mention of those two franchises doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights.
My point is I don't mind people having unusual preferred interests and hobbies. I applaud standing up against abuse. But I do mind when someone's hobby involves efforts to oppose the spread and praise of a legitimate religion, particularly when the religion in question is mine.
So I don't think I have a false persecution complex. Attempts to counter the spread of a religion constitutes persecution. And investing time and effort into such an endeavour is a waste. I don't know about you, but I prefer to spend my spare time doing other things that other people are cool with.
I want Mr. Alexander to stop commenting on the video and find a new hobby. Take up archery, fencing, model trains, building model planes, LEGOS, drawing, pottery, join the local debate team (where he can argue and debate to his heart's content), make logic and argumentation videos, volunteer at the local thrift store or the local soup kitchen. Do anything but badger Catholics over a YouTube video and their beliefs.
History has demonstrated time and time again that religions aren't going anywhere no matter how many times someone tries to stamp them out or oppose their expansion.
These screenshots are from a Tumblr blog post. The OP identifies as multiple LGTBQ+ labels and was raised Catholic. The OP was also heavily abused by their mom in the name of Catholicism because they are LGBTQ+ . They do get annoyed with Christianity and Catholicism sometimes, but they also don't object to the beliefs. They believe that the Catholic Church is the problem, not the tenets of Christianity themselves. They recommend being Catholic/Christian, but not being a part of the institutional church itself. I disagree with that because you can't call yourself a Catholic while not being a part of the institutional church.
I just wanted to clarify that the OP posted a pic of a Torri gate at the top of their post so that's why they mentioned a Torri gate.
But this is basically someone who was heavily abused in the name of religion saying that trying to stamp out or oppose the expansion of legitimate religions is a futile endeavor from a historical standpoint.
So, I think I have a right to be inclined to believe that Mr. Alexander is not engaging in good faith for my reasons stated above and for reasons I outlined in another blog post: My Boundaries For Non-Christians When Talking About Homosexuality With Me
So when I see Mr. Alexander responding to Christians with, "Check the splinter in your eye," it annoys me because he has no right to tell them that. He has a splinter in his own eye that he needs to take care of (persisting in an unusual hobby that others have expressed they're not cool with, making mistaken assumptions about me despite a previous thread debunking that assumption, and employing the "Argument from Silence" fallacy).
And I don't know logic and argumentation very well. The "Argument From Silence" fallacy, Pascal's Wager, Reductio ad Absurdum, as well as the Steelman Argument are the extent of my knowledge about argumentation and logic.
Logic and argumentation are just not things I'm interested in. I'm an arts person. I don't go around throwing the baby out with the bathwater and telling people that a legitimate religion they follow is immoral. I overthink a lot and I just don't see the need to parse everything out because there are things in this world that are simply not logical or rational.