|
God (pg. 48)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
:stongue:
Can't say I'm surprised though. |
|
|
| Znack |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
The real irony is that those whose faith is in logic seem to also be adherent to logic only when it suits their purpose. At all other times, viewing one's opponent through a lens of contempt and interrogating their opinion as though they arose from a child seems, to them, a reasonable approach. |
I don't quite understand this. Are you saying it's illogical having contempt of something? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I don't quite understand this. Are you saying it's illogical having contempt of something? |
No. I'm saying that most of the atheists I've read, who seem assured in the logical underpinnings of their assumptions, are not as familiar as they need to be, with logic, to successfully argue their cause. When the requisite command of logic eludes them - as evidenced by numerous internet postings authored by atheists - they resort to speaking to religious people with a contemptuous condescension reminiscent of how an adult might speak to an errant child - or worse; a litany of poorly executed constructive ad hominems which undermines whatever essential validity might otherwise have existed in their arguments to begin with. I'm not saying religious people are any better but, if you are assured in the logical correctness of your position, it would serve you well to adhere, quite strictly, to the rules of logic when posting your argument.
To do otherwise makes you look like a foolish, fanatical lunatic who believes in something which is completely imaginary as it appears to have been entirely reasoned through nothing less than intertwined logical fallacies that create what is essentially a sloppily organized narrative mythology onto itself. If you cannot argue your position without resorting to logical fallacy (up to and including ad hominem) and can't be satisfied with mindlessly regurgitating Sagan or Dawkins quotes, demonstrating very little understanding of what they actually meant by what is quoted in reply to some argument made by a religious person, then the only thing you're really doing is adding more complete and utter bull to a discussion so prevalent with it that it serves little purpose other than to further corrode your already imperiled reasoning. |
|
|
| Znack |
I don't disagree with you there, if somebody did that. It's just not my experience it general, that it is the atheists who have to resort to ad-hominem to defend their position, although I of course am not so naive to think there aren't any foolish atheists.
Now i am only lacking examples of where it happened. Is it this thread you referring to? |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Znack
I don't disagree with you there, if somebody did that. It's just not my experience it general, that it is the atheists who have to resort to ad-hominem to defend their position, although I of course am not so naive to think there aren't any foolish atheists.
Now i am only lacking examples of where it happened. Is it this thread you referring to? |
It's not simply in this thread. My girlfriend has a fairly large contingent of atheists on her facebook, as well. Again, it's not just atheists who argue like that but, when atheists imply their monopoly on logic by insisting that belief in God is the result of illogical thinking, to engage in further illogical discourse is indicative of hypocrisy.
Subsequent to the post you quoted, I got into a discussion of it with Hal and, in the link below, I point out where you've engaged in similar behavior. There are examples of it, all throughout this thread. In many ways, religious people make the same mistakes, too and perhaps, having a discussion relegated to that rhetorical plane, is anathematic to having a discussion about religion/atheism, at all.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...6&pagenumber=22 |
|
|
| -FSP- |
What is funny is that some atheists think that you can't prove a negative. the thing is you can.
¬¬p is how you do it.
yes, logic is used as a proxy, it is used as a smoke screen to make contempt seem justifiable. I often see a contemptive attitude in political or religious discourse when someone is saying a person isn't logical. It seems pretty dogmatic.
This post isn't directed towards atheists, just people who try to add color to the word "logic" because it's hella annoying when you do that. Lastly, you CAN prove a negative! |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| I have sustainable logical proof in the existence of santa clause. |
|
|
| Joss Weatherby |
| Also, at least in this country (the US) there should be contempt for religious people. They should be ridiculed and driven from having any sort of serious role in society. They contribute nothing to our advancement and they wrap up very bad policy in the guise of religion. If you take away the flock of sheep who will blindly follow religious conservatives we would solve a lot of the political problems in this country. They would have to find something else to convince people to vote for their horrible policy other than being "good god fearing bible worshiping politicians" which is the sole reason I have heard people vote for conservatives. These are the same poor people that rely on government help to let their families survive, and they are willing to throw it away because the people that are trying to take it from them are "good christians." |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Joss Weatherby
Also, at least in this country (the US) there should be contempt for religious people. They should be ridiculed and driven from having any sort of serious role in society. They contribute nothing to our advancement and they wrap up very bad policy in the guise of religion. If you take away the flock of sheep who will blindly follow religious conservatives we would solve a lot of the political problems in this country. They would have to find something else to convince people to vote for their horrible policy other than being "good god fearing bible worshiping politicians" which is the sole reason I have heard people vote for conservatives. These are the same poor people that rely on government help to let their families survive, and they are willing to throw it away because the people that are trying to take it from them are "good christians." |
Troll type: Topicus Hand-Jazzicus Nigglous
Subtype: Reformus Religulous Totalicus
Strengths: Presents an inflexible, radical viewpoint by appearing to have drawn conclusions from incomplete or inaccurate sources of information; thereby fostering a belief that correcting such inaccuracies will result in the target's "success".
Weaknesses: Inflexibility and Radicalization must be carefully balanced with just the right amount of ignorance unless the whole mixture becomes volatile and evaporates. Loses potency after first 459 doses.
Here, Nou hazardously puts forth his "opinion" which has so many gaping holes the target should not be able resist trying to fill them. Mixed with an alarming conclusion about what should be done and to whom, he has set the trap which he must tip-toe away from, so as not to set it off, prematurely. Unfortunately, too much inflexibility tipped the balance and the target was able to detect the acrid scent of burning troll.
Score: 9.9/99.99 |
|
|
|
|
