CONFIRMATION BIAS CHECK

111 posts / 0 new
Last post
ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Your posts are difficult to

Your posts are difficult to read if you don't mind me saying. But I stand by every one of those quotes, They demonstrate that I didn't accuse anyone of bias, and merely stated my reasons for believing there is bias.

Sheldon's picture
So you didn't accuse anyone

So you didn't accuse anyone of bias, just claimed they were biased? Are you being serious?

You still haven't said how this quote endorses your position that the bible prohibits rather than endorses slavery?

20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property.

Or what you meant when you said you were "sure it didn't mean what *YOU GUYS* want it to mean?

1. What does it say other than people could own slaves and beat them to death?
2. I assume you meant atheists by *you guys* so what is it you're claiming atheists WANT it to mean that differs from what it actually says?
3 How is claiming someone wants the quote to mean something it doesn't not an accusation of bias? You do know what bias means don't you?

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
1 & 2: Refer back to the

1 & 2: Refer back to the thread where it was discussed.
3: I wasn't concerned with bias when I made that statement. But if you wish to extract an accusation of bias from it, you're more than welcome.

Sheldon's picture
1. What does it say other

1. What does it say other than people could own slaves and beat them to death?
2. I assume you meant atheists by *you guys* so what is it you're claiming atheists WANT it to mean that differs from what it actually says?

"1 & 2: Refer back to the thread where it was discussed."

You never answered these question there either, and it was you who introduced this passage here, to repeat your lie and accuse atheists of bias for simply taking it objectively as it is written. Small wonder then that you are yet again shamelessly evading answering.
----------------------------------------------
" I wasn't concerned with bias when I made that statement. But if you wish to extract an accusation of bias from it, you're more than welcome."

What the fuck has that got to do with you accusing atheists of bias then lying and denying you'd made the accusation? Here are the quotes from you in this thread making the accusation of bias. Now you're dishonestly using word games. wtf does bias was not on my mine mean exactly, does it mean your grasp of English is so bad you're now claiming you didn't now you were making specific and blatant accusations that atheists are biased repeatedly as I have shown, here again for you below...

1) Breezy "I believe many atheists, regardless if they were once Christian, simply look for things they disagree with, or *hope* to disagree with."
2) Breezy "I do assume the Bible is interpretable. That's why I believe *atheists have incentive* to pick the least charitable one, the least logical one, the least beneficent one. Because doing so makes it easiest to reject."
3) Breezy "We're all biased."
4) Breezy "As I mentioned in the OP: "I believe many atheists, ......simply look for things they disagree with, or *hope* to disagree with."
5) Breezy "Why is it difficult for you to list the positives, if you're as objective as you claim to be?"
6) Breezy "take the slavery verse about dying after two days. I'm positive it doesn't mean what you guys **WANT** it to mean."
7) Breezy " I do call them biased when they seek to reaffirm that opinion exclusively."

Here is your post denying you'd made those accusations:

"Wed, 11/22/2017 - 13:30
John 6IX Breezy "I didn't accuse anyone of bias."
----------------------------------------------------------------

You also still haven't said how the quote below validates your position that the bible prohibits rather than endorses slavery?

20 Death is the punishment for beating to death any of your slaves.
21 However, if the slave lives a few days after the beating,
you are not to be punished. After all, you have
already lost the services of that slave who was your property.

Or what you meant when you said you were "sure it didn't mean what *YOU GUYS* want it to mean?

Randomhero1982's picture
You may also want to take

You may also want to take into account that people will add caveats even if you ask them not too, purely because all too often people come on to sites such as this and other atheist sites and try little "ah ha gotcha!" games...

So even if your intentions are honest, there may be a lot of people holding back in case this is simply another one of these moves.

I personally think any and every book can have some good found in it, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
If you wish to reiterate that

If you wish to reiterate that you are atheist, despite its redundancy, then I suppose that sort of caveat is fine. What I don't think is fine are the caveats that downplay the positive statements you just finished making.

Randomhero1982's picture
No I'm atheist because there

No I'm atheist because there's is no proof of a god and most of the stories are made up.
When talking to theists the only proof they provide is resorting to scripture 90% of the time, which we know is just a fallacious appeal to authority.

As I said, some like minded atheist thinkers will simply not play along because it tends to be a little tactic to trap.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Ok, you lost me.

If you're this cautious of traps then why participate at all? It seems counterintuitive.

Randomhero1982's picture
Because it benefits humanity

Because it benefits humanity to have dialog.

And mostly because I find theists fascinating.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
But you hinder dialogue when

But you hinder dialogue when you're cautious unnecessarily. I gave you no reason to suspect a trap, instead you're basing it on prior experience with theists. Isn't that how biases are formed?

Randomhero1982's picture
Well if you set narrow

Well if you set narrow prescriptive parameters then yes it could hinder conversation, but if you are genuinely interested in dialogue and debate, freedom if speech and free thinking then caveats are more then acceptable, in fact they are essential.

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
Not the way you're using

Not the way you're using caveats. If you ask me to say something positive about you, and I say you're smart, but you're definitely not the smartest person I know, and anything smart you have to say has been said better by others. Do I really think you're smart? Am I really saying something positive about you? It doesn't sound like it. All the caveat tells me is that you don't really have anything positive to say.

Agree to disagree I suppose.

Randomhero1982's picture
And that would tell me far

And that would tell me far more about you then I would have known previously, it would also show your honesty on whatever the question would be.

If you are completing a thesis, would you want simply positive or negative comments from your professor or would you prefer both so that you can work out what you are correct about and what can be worked on and improved?

Certainly, agree to disagree...

ʝօɦռ 6IX ɮʀɛɛʐʏ's picture
If this was a thesis and you

If this was a thesis and you were a professor I would want both. But this isn't a thesis, you're not a professor, and I'm already coming with the assumption that all you have are negative comments. Negatives are redundant here and arguably further support my claim. I asked to hear the positives, so that my claim would be disproven.

Moreover, giving positives and negatives is not what you've been doing. You've either said positives and immediately downplayed their positivity: "I conceded that there are some good moral principles within the king James bible. But... all bible's do, that doesn't make Christianity special...." Or you've taken a negative and treated it as a positive sarcastically: "It displays a wonderful level of imagination."

If my professor did either of those two things, I'd assume he either didn't like my thesis at all, or was reluctant to say so.

Sheldon's picture
John 6IX Breezy "But you

John 6IX Breezy "But you hinder dialogue"

Irony overload...

Randomhero1982's picture
No I'm atheist because there

No I'm atheist because there's is no proof of a god and most of the stories are made up.
When talking to theists the only proof they provide is resorting to scripture 90% of the time, which we know is just a fallacious appeal to authority.

As I said, some like minded atheist thinkers will simply not play along because it tends to be a little tactic to trap.

Randomhero1982's picture
You may also want to take

You may also want to take into account that people will add caveats even if you ask them not too, purely because all too often people come on to sites such as this and other atheist sites and try little "ah ha gotcha!" games...

So even if your intentions are honest, there may be a lot of people holding back in case this is simply another one of these moves.

I personally think any and every book can have some good found in it, of that I have absolutely no doubt.

Sheldon's picture
The salient point no matter

The salient point no matter how much you ignore is that your OP is a moot point as to whether the bible demonstrates any evidence a deity exists. Paradoxically the fact that evil, immoral and erroneous claims are ubiquitous in it amply demonstrate it could not logically be claimed to have been inspired by a perfectly merciful, omniscient deity. So your red herring of an OP is not the "gotcha" trap you seem convinced it is, merely another indication your bias blinds you to how to irrational and illogical your beliefs are. But then anyone who can claim a verse that states explicitly how to buy, own and beat slaves, does not endorse buying, owning or beating slaves is as laughably incapable of rationality as they are of objectivity. Of course you couldn't even stop there, and suggested those who quoted the verse verbatim and merely acknowledge what it literally said, were the ones exhibiting bias. A classic example of Orwellian doublethink.

Sky Pilot's picture
John 6IX Breezy,

John 6IX Breezy,

IMO one of the best advice passages is Proverbs 1:8-19 (CEV) = Warnings against Bad Friends
8 My child, obey the teachings
of your parents,
9 and wear their teachings
as you would a lovely hat
or a pretty necklace.
10 Don’t be tempted by sinners
or listen 11 when they say,
“Come on! Let’s gang up
and kill somebody,
just for the fun of it!
12 They’re well and healthy now,
but we’ll finish them off
once and for all.
13 We’ll take their valuables
and fill our homes
with stolen goods.
14 If you join our gang,
you’ll get your share.”
15 Don’t follow anyone like that
or do what they do.
16 They are in a big hurry
to commit some crime,
perhaps even murder.
17 They are like a bird
that sees the bait,
but ignores the trap.[a]
18 They gang up to murder someone,
but they are the victims.
19 The wealth you get from crime
robs you of your life.

The books of Wisdom & Sirach also have some good advice.

Sky Pilot's picture
The Bible has a couple of

The Bible has a couple of clever detective stories.

One is Bel and the Dragon = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=belandthedragon&version=CEB

The other is Susanna = https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Susanna+1&version=CEB

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.