Pat Robertson on natural disasters

How can you tell an mathematician is an extrovert?When S/he talks to you they look at your shoes.

But you havn't reached a logical conclusion. That has already been shown with quite a bit of evidence. In no way can Roberston's words reasonably be concluded to represent the position of Xians as a group. And Jazzns, while holding a couple semantically similar doctrines as Robertson is correct that they are opposed to one another and so each are different "types" of Xian. Denominations are extremely important.Indeed you asked for better terminology and it already exists. That is what denominations are used for. There are many different types of discussions and debates. It is clear I am not interested in the kind that you and Faith and Canadian Steve engage in. That is I am interested in discussion where both parties move toward logically consistent conclusions by examining both parties' positions regarding logic and evidence. While you guys are interested in arguing for your position, and as long as arguments maintain the semblance of logic and are well written, that is good enough for you... let people decide. Contrary evidence including evidence that the whole of one's position is not logically consistent, is ignored for sake of pressing the attack.The former is a way of moving and improving information. The latter is sophistry at best, propaganda at worst.You are not the arbiter of what EvC is. But I do understand you better. One of your weak areas appears to be insisting that you are the arbiter of correct terminology that all most comply with. You used most, I used quite. My guess is if we took a poll quite a bit of people, that would be most, would feel that quite does not mean total, but rather most.Yes I did not mean total, so we agreed on it. I'll start by saying you are correct that two people that believe in a guy named jesus have more in common than one who does and one who does not. As I have already said repeatedly and provided more than enough evidence for, there are a certain set of doctrines which Xians share.These (if you read them) are vague enough that theoretical agreement will not be the same as practical agreement. The source also mentioned this same fact. And your continued pretense that this has not been shown is not cool.For example, two people could agree with the theory that Jesus was the son of God. Yet one group believes that Jesus was a physical being created when God physically created a pregnancy in a woman to create a child... a literal son of God. But another group believes that Jesus was a piece of God, or perhaps a metaphysical offspring which entered the world through a woman yet was not actually physically a person... a figurative son of God.Thus they both have a theoretical belief which is similar, but because of other theoretical beliefs they do not share, have a practical belief which is in opposition. That is to practice all of their theories in total, produces very different belief systems. This is a perfect example of sophistry. Its almost purely semantics and does not move your argument forward, nor reduce mine at all.Yes, vastly different within their narrow (when compared to all different belief systems available) faith. That is all that is necessary to show how wrong your stereotype was, and how right Jazzns is.I might point out that your attempt at adhominem of Xians is a bit selfdefeating. Atheism and Agnosticism (which I am a member) is equally narrow compared to all beliefs possible. Yet a prominent Atheist cannot be said to speak for all atheists because of the diverse nature of atheists. Unless now you are going to hold that it is reasonable for religious people to view atheists as of one mind and some self-proclaimed leader (lets say O'Hara) speaks for everyone? I already said lying to avoid threat of injury makes sense. I would also say small lies to make others feel better (or avoid pain) is nothing big. Quit wriggling away from what I was talking about. Lying about YOURSELF when it means nothing really is a bit immature. So now you are down to simply saying "Is so!"? I gave an analogy. You attempted to disprove it using a logical fallacy by extending the analogy to something else. I have now pointed this out to you.You do not simply get to say that you were right. The analogy stands. I was only discussing differences and limits of what a subunit says within a larger unit.Ironically, I could have taken a different tack and accepted your fallacy for sake of argument to prove my own point. The reason military are not allowed to use political speech is that despite being a subunit of the larger heirarchy called the US Gov't, their words are not supposed to be viewed as pertaining to anything beyond their subunit.If your next point will be that soldiers who make political comments are punished by the other elements, and that is somehow different than Robertson and other Xians, then we are back at your other mistake which I have shown. Other denominations must certainly stand against Robertson all the time. That you do not know this is YOUR ignorance and not anyone else's fault.Even if this were common ignorance does not make it any less ignorance. There is a great ignorance in the US regarding evolutionary theory, that does not make those with the stereotype correct and the rest of us have to accept their terms and ideas. Rhetoric does not have to be used in support of sophistry, and so be sophistry. My statement was to stop using rhetoric and use logic. Your reliance on one at the expense of the other is making your argument nothing but sophistry.I guess what I should have said was to emphasize logic more than rhetoric.AbE: It just occured to me that you claimed your positions are based on science and scientific method. This whole incident is clear proof that this is not true, and indeed that you resist this on some of the most simplest matters.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-24-2005 08:11 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

No. No he doesn't. No he absolutely doesn't and I have already shown this from his own words. This just goes to show you are as ignorant as to what Robertson is says and does as what Xians are about.Oh he may claim that he speaks for all "true" Xians, but that is clearly opposed to a majority of practicing Xians in existence. I mean, he says that. He has his own network and publicity team and makes controversial statements. That's why you hear the crazy shit he says. The rest don't have networks or publicity teams or make controversial statements. That's why you don't hear what they say in response.Of course you can hear them speak out. They speak out on talk shows he is on, or when he is referenced. They also speak out like they have hear at EvC.What more do they have to do? Patriotic Americans aren't marching nationally or internationally against Pat Robertson and he makes the same claims regarding "true" Americans. Yes, as much as he says he speaks for "true" Xians, he says he speaks for "true" Americans. Why do you just defy him at EvC like Jazzns, and not march down to his station and picket? IF you understand that he doesn't speak for all Xians, why do all Xians have to protest to disassociate themselves from him?At least crash's point would be consistent based on supporting ignorance, and demanding disproof. This seems to argue that even though it is clear he has no authority, people need to prove his lack of authority?Why can't they just deny him publicly (as they do), but not waste more energy than necessary and so justify his vision of self importance and increase the likelihood of him being quoted? Someone else mentioned this and I already answered, though I guess you missed it.First of all he doesn't speak for all Xians and he never claimed to speak for all Xians. I have shown this. Go back and look through my posts or go to Wiki and look him up. That you do not know this simply means you are ignorant about what he actually says.Second, Xians do speak out against him. That you do not know this shows your ignorance of what Xians are doing in response to him. They don't get as much coverage, and they don't do it ala giant marches but why should they? Why should they have to work to disprove your ignorance?Third, there is more of a reason for mass protest of an elected official, and that is because that person is in a position as a legal and official representative. If some jackass puts up a transmitter and claims to speak for all group X, no one has to do anything and mass protest is more or less likely to justify that jackass's ego as well as assuring he will get more coverage given his ability to generate news.Fourth, is there a reason Xians in general should not credit others with the ability to reason and gather evidence, easily enough obtained, or wisdom to spot Robertson does not represent all Xians and could never do so?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Hi Again Jazzns:Man, I go away for the weekend, only to come back today and find that I am waaaaaay behind on this thread. Thank you...you're assumption is quite correct. This is also why my arguments have been lacking. I should apologize as well. I'm replying to both you and Holmes...one of whom doesn't get it, and I admittedly get frustrated.
Now, to answer your question as best as I can:
Because that's what happens. Despite Holmes' utterly amazing and superhuman ability to make no judgments or assume nothing about other people, most of us mere mortals can't help but make assumptions and often times stereotype people as well.
And I must also admit that I feel that Crashfrog does make a perfectly valid point when he speaks of Christians belonging to a "group". However, I will not get into that here...that's for you and Crash to hash out. Again, what are my choices? Ok, let's start here...I heard the Christian Pat Robertson say we should kill Chavez. I find out you’re a Christian. I have two choices. First, I could assume you agree or second, I could assume you do not agree (or I could be like the utterly amazing and ridiculously intelligent "Holmes" and assume nothing whatsoever). At the same time, I "notice" that I have heard no other Christian leaders denounce Pat Robertson. I guess I lean towards option number one.
Let me give you a real World example. I eat lunch almost everyday with the same few individuals (all friends). A couple (one in particular) lean far more right than I do. Politics and religion often come up as a part of the lunchtime conversation (mainly because I love to argue ). When I brought up the topic of Pat Robertson, those that I know are religious, and would consider themselves a Christian, said nothing? What should I assume at that point? I gave them an option...speak out against or agree. Instead they said nothing. Sorry Jazzns, but in that case I chose option two. We have since "worked it out...but the point is, is that by remaining silent I assumed they agreed with him. Was that wrong of me? I think not because at that point I believe it is impossible to NOT assume something, so why should it be any different in this debate? Because my first impression has been my only impression. I know that Holmes has been saying that others within Pats organization and some other religious leaders have spoken out. But not really. I'm talking about mainstream, well known leaders. Where have they been? I'm not a very religious person. I don't claim to be a Christian. I'm not well versed in the Bible. All I know is that Pat Robertson does claim to be all of the above. When he makes statements that he says are supported by his religion and the Bible, why is it so hard for you to see why I would assume that others claiming to be Christians would agree with what he says? And again, despite what Holmes has told me, I have not seen a huge uprising in the Christian community speaking out against what he says (over and over again). I feel, at times, that I am left with no other choice.

Maybe I can finally make my point here and you'll understand what I have been trying to tell you. I no longer associate Jazzns with the words of Pat Robertson. "Why?", you ask. Well, he told me so. Do I expect every Christian out there to personally notify me to let me know their stance on Pat Robertson? Of course not. However, the association has been made...therefore remaining quite, to me, is a passive endorsement. My opinion was made only after I heard nothing.As mentioned earlier by Crashfrog . Pats organization does publish and distribute literature to churches around the world. Personally, I'm a bit curious to know how many churches out there knowingly or unknowingly subscribe to his publications. Also, would receiving and distributing this stuff be an important measure of “acceptance” to you?You keep harping on Crash, telling him that Christians as a whole share many beliefs, but also differ in some ways. I think we all know that, Holmes. At he same time then, doesn't that kind of "force" them to differentiate themselves from groups with which they disagree? How are we to know what they agree about and what they differ on? Why is it wrong to assume that when a Christian leader makes a statement, he speaks for all Christians?Certainly there are things that Pat Robertson says that all Christians agree with...correct? How am I to know when he speaks a truth for all and when he speaks a truth for his particular subset? Perhaps in the examples we have been discussing it could be argued that the differences are obvious. But again, how do we know where to draw the line between understanding when he speaks a “truth” for all Christians and when he speaks on some other level?Is it your argument that when Pat Robertson says something outlandish that I should assume he speaks for no one other than his particular subset? We both know that he reaches FAR more people than just his 700 club members. I suppose that one could argue that the proper thing to do would be to assume that no one other than his particular subset of Christians agree with him . until, IMHO, an association has be made or the question has been asked . justified or not. Then they should speak out. That is what I have been trying to say throughout this thread. Jazzns seems to have gotten that long ago, yet you still think that I lump all Christians together.Here's a situation that I would think is not all that far fetched. What if I was together with a group of Christians and I say something along the lines of: “Boy that Pat Robertson sure is a bit nutty . not a very good Christian.”, and they just sat there and stared at me. What am I to think. Now personally, I would then be of the opinion that they agree with him. I know that you are superhuman and would make no assumptions, remaining completely vacuous. Me . well I’m not that amazing. He's a Christian, they're Christians. He said something as a Christian, and I point out how outlandish and unchristian it sounded. They sit there and stare at me. Hmmmmm?

First of all you keep putting words in my mouth and its pissing me off. Second you have a strawman of my position (most likely related to the first point). Third I have already submitted evidence which should makes some of your commentary moot. Unmentioned is that I actually presented evidence, from Pat Robertson himself, stating that he does not speak for all Xians. Indeed he indicts the majority of practicing Xians as followers of the antiChrist. Now you and Crash can say all you want about what he says and how much he puts out, but the facts are in and you guys are 100% wrong. He doesn't say what you think he says.If someone doesn't claim he speaks for all X, and demonizes large portions of X, and large portions of X dispute him, who is at fault for your idea that he says he speaks for all of X, and barely anyone disputes him?This should be very clear. Anyone who views Robertson as speaking for Xians, or that he says he speaks for all Xians, is wrong. 100% factually wrong. Such people have created a strawman of Robertson's position.The rest of your argument is essentially an argument from ignorance. Could say? Yes. Does say? Not that I know of. "Let us pray", Maybe?It is apparent no one who is arguing this is actually familiar with his ministry, his products, or I guess people outside of that ministry.My suggestion is to look at the Wiki link I gave earlier on Xianity and read the vague doctrines which most Xians share. If Robertson stuck to those, and had no additional doctrines which shaped what the specifically mean, then he could speak in a way most Xians would understand and accept. But that theoretical possibility is not reality. The proper thing to do is to find out more about Robertson and so learn that he himself says he speaks only for his group, and others are all going to hell. He sure speaks to lots of other people, trying to get them to join his side, but that is different than having followers. He is an evangelist after all.Given the facts the safest assumption is that when he speaks he speaks for himself and perhaps for much of those within his ministry (though as I have already said he sometimes fights with them as well). That seems like the beginnings of a reasonable situation. Something totally unlike assuming something about Xians a priori, just because you heard some guy he was a Xian saying something.In this case you have thrown something out there with a definite edge, and people did not react to you. There would likely be a reason. You apparently know as much about me as you do about Xians and Robertson. I would have agreed with your assessment of the above scenario.HOWEVER, if your suggestion was that you could read from the reaction of that group of Xians that said nothing to you anything about Xians in general, you'd still be wrong. But that isn't happening in the big wide world. And that certainly isn't what happened with Crash, or shraf, or how you started in on this.Then again if you are relating a personal experience perhaps you said something else along with it, regarding Xians, that simply left them stunned. If I were a Xian and you said something like Crash had said "Gee that Robertson guy said some outrageous stuff, you Xians are crazy", my reaction might be to sit there politely and think 'this guy is an idiot, what is the point of trying to explain?'

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

It is quite simple. Robertson never speaks a truth for all. He may sometime speak what all would agree is a truth. But he does not do so on behalf of the entire group of christians.A comparison: George Bush speaks for all americans, including me, even when I don't agree with him. That's because he has been elected to a position of spokesman. However Jimmy Carter does not speak for all americans and does not speak for me even when I do agree with him. That's because he does not hold any position that entitles him to speak for me.

Too err is human. I didn't say people won't make assumptions. I also didn't say they will never find themselves in a position where they might want to do so.What I have said is that when making an assumption, it is the duty of the assumer to get his facts straight, and if the assumption turns out to be false to do the apologizing and correct their position.Yes, it will happen that someone makes an assumption about you. Then yes as a practical measure you'll have to explain the mistake they made. The point again is that while that is the practical reality, the error does not shift to you if you did not correct their mistake prior to or after they made a mistake. Sounds like THEY might agree with Robertson. If they are conservative that might also be an indication they'd be more aligned with his version of Xianity.Extrapolating from that to a statement or belief about Xians at large is still one hell of a huge mistake. Plain ignorance as far as I can tell. I can't get off a plane, talk to two foreigners, then fly back and tell people I know what people from country X are like. Wow Jesse Jackson isn't mainstream or well known? Hmmm. The question to ask is where have you been such that you don't know Robertson limits who he is speaking for all by himself, and where have you been that you haven't heard people disputing his commentary?It seems like you want there to be mass demonstrations that make the news so that you can obtain knowledge more easily. That's not how the world works. Its not there to serve you. Pat gets his message out because he owns a network and a publicity company all working to get you to hear him and he says outrageous things that media loves. So the time (one of countless times) that he refered to most practicing Xians as harboring the antiChrist, you feel it is safe to assume... because you saw no huge uprising... that its safe to assume most Xians believe they are harboring the antiChrist and indeed antiXian?I feel sometimes like people's rationalizations for their ignorance is going to make my head explode.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

(This one is really going to piss you off.)
But you can if you want. What's to stop you? Would it be a correct assumption...probably not? But it could also be true. And if the two people you happened to talk to where major political players and no one voiced an objection, then that's one more strike against them. Now keep you panties on Holmes...I am not suggesting that your assumption would be valid or correct. Just that it could AND DOES happen all the time. Sure, the people of the Country of which you spoke are under no obligation to correct your assumptions, and perhaps you are an ignorant bigot for saying whatever it is you said. So what...you still said it and others may adopt your attitude, until nobody wants to go there any more. All because you were an asshole and made disparaging remarks about their Country. Nice job Holmes. As much as I'd like to see that, I'm first going to try this one more time. Who knows, maybe I can put out the fuse out before it reaches the bomb.This all started with a group lumping. One Christian made a statement and all Christians were lumped together with that statement. I do not now nor did I then endorse that association...but I understood where it was coming from because I live out here in the real World...in a very poor and very conservative region. Not to stereotype, but a good number of people in my neck of the woods who are not 700 club members or evangelical Protestants did agree with Pat Robertson. So you see, he does reach beyond just his followers.Some people here seemed stunned that such an association could be made. While it certainly is not justified (are you reading this Holmes...I'm agreeing that it is not justified) it is still done.I have been trying for some time now to get you to stop calling me ignorant and making the assumption that I agree with the idea that all Christians agree with every word Pat Robertson says. All I have been doing is trying to help Jazzns see why people might make such an assumption. And while I do not agree with the assumption . many other people do . right or wrong, ignorant or not, bigoted or not.You seem to think this all about you being right and me being wrong. For me, that is not what this has been all about. Instead, I've simply been trying to say that people do this very thing all the time. And while I do not necessarily agree with everything Crash says...some of what he says does makes sense and HAPPENS all the time.I will also say this: I did get a Hoot out of your saying that Jessie Jackson should be applauded and used as an example of a well known, national figure denouncing Pat Robertson. Ha...good one.

I think this was a good explanation of your position FO. I have a better understanding of where you are coming from now.I think though that there is a gap between what different people were arguing on this thread. Holmes, nwr, and I have had our sole focus on the validity of association not the existance. I think the reason for some of the frustration is that it seems as though you are echoing crash when you are not. Crash for the most part has been on his own.I guess my question to you would then be what point did you hope to achieve by stating your argument? It should be pretty clear that people will and do stereotype in real life. I don't think anyone here was questioning that. From the very first post, my intention at least, was to argue for the complete intellectual bankruptcy of stereotyping people in general.There is all kinds of stereotyping out there such as racism, sexism, class struggles, religious persection and persecuting, etc. People will always group other people unfairly. I even catch myself doing that from time to time. As far as I can imagine though, there is no situation where any of those stereotypes or any other stereotypes are valid.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

I'm not sure what I can do if you keep wanting to read something into my posts which are not there. This has already been agreed by me several times. Ignorant, not necessarily a bigot. It is not that you cannot physically do what I said, it is that you cannot reasonably do what I said. It's what separates a reasonable person, from a Cliff Clavenish ignoramus. While my family's religion was nonevangelical, I grew up in a conservative religious community with evangelicals all around (Right next to the Billy Graham Center), went to a religious affiliated university in the heart of redneck religious conservative midwest, and watched 700 club "religiously" for a number of years.You don't have to be evangelical to agree with Pat Robertson. You don't have to be a Republican to agree with Bush either. The point is that Pat himself says he does not speak for all Xians. If you saw people agreeing with Pat, my question to you is what did you see them agreeing to as Xians? How often did they agree? But I already agreed that people could make that assumption. I believe even Jazzns agrees that some will and why that is so.What I have been saying is that those assumptions would be errant, and appeals to other errant assumptions (like Xians don't actively disagree with Robertson) don't change the errancy.It seems you are saying that they would be errant. Great. But then you continue to argue in ways that make it seem like you are defending those mistakes as reasonable. They aren't.It takes all of ten minutes on the internet, or maybe a show and a half of the 700 club, or an interview with Pat and another minister, to figure that out. Are you doubting this or what? In any case, I never said appluaded. He is a well known religious figure who actively argues against Robertson and fallwell. You can see some great verbal sparring when he and other evangelicals get paired on talk shows.I might note that you did say you hadn't seen Xians refuting Robertson. That is clearly ignorance on you part.This message has been edited by holmes, 10-24-2005 04:56 PM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm astonished that you know so few Christians; or, perhaps, you live in a part of the world with a concentration of the worst sort of them.From the Christians I know well, I don't have to ask what they think of Pat Robertson and never have. I just know that they will disagree with him on almost everything. The only areas of agreement would be just enough to make them all Christians.I have noted a number of times here that I also know I (an atheist) have much more in common in almost any philosophical area with my Christian friends than they do with some of the "Christians" that drop in here or with Pat Robertson.I'm inclined to think, for example, that Jar and I have more in common then he does with any number of the "Pat R." type of Christians. The statement that a group of Christians will all (or even most) be more similar to each other than to an atheist is a suspect claim in my opinion and experience.

quote:

---

I'm astonished that you know so few Christians; or, perhaps, you live in a part of the world with a concentration of the worst sort of them.

---

Here in liberal, college town, pinko hippie Ann Arbor, there's only a couple of churches which are crazy fundie Robertson-lovers.But drive in any direction for 30 minutes or so, and you enter a very scary, scary fundamentalist land where people erect bizarre homemade billboards next to their grain silos and milking parlors depicting the crucified, blood-covered Jesus and warnings of doom and torture if one doesn't repent and accpt the Messiah into one's heart.Then there are the crazy urban cinderblock churches in Detroit that are scattered among the pawn shops, junkyards, liquor stores, crack houses, chop shops, and street walkers.FliesOnly and I really do live in crazy fundie land. I'm in the one oasis of liberal politics and educated thought in about a 200 mile radius.

There are what we regard as Biblical conservative Christians. These are the fundamentalists. Then within the fundamentalists you have the charismatic penticostals tending towards the Armenian and the more Calvanistic Baptist types. Then there's the more Biblical liberal Christians who liberally interpret scriptures and are generally not very evangelistic/evangelical.For me, the Biblical fundamentalist, the answer to your question above is to agree with those statements of Robertson which are scripturally fundamental and literal and disagree with him when he gets un-Biblically literal, which he does, imo quite often in interpretation of certain scriptures. This also, imo, is where he gets himself into hot water.If a more liberal Christian were to answer your question you're going to get a more vague answer relative to what a given individual thinks; usually more of a world view, which will likely be quite negative and, imo, unfair. Why unfair? Because they should understand that Robertson, a more Biblial fundamentalist Christian than some, especially so far as the OP of this thread was quoting lots of scripture and being very literally fundamental as to what the Bible says on the subject pertaining to the op.

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buzsaw

I have also lived in crazy fundie land. The problem is that you are equating a group's outspokeness with ability to make assessments regarding a much larger group.Even if they are a majority within a small community, which is what your own experience suggests, there is the rest of the world out there.Fundies want to convert everyone, that's why they post all that crap everywhere they can and try and get laws inserted to change you life. The nonfundies don't do that, thus they are not as visible.If a person is going to formulate an opinion on a subject they ought to base it on more than the amount of posters and billboards they see with a certain message.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)