| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
| Date: |
17 Nov 2005 07:17:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> suddenly spluttered:
Cutting out all of the crap, let's get to the essence of 'Dawkins''
argument:
theists
accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God.
Which he simply re-iterates in different terms several dozen times.
It is an argument from authority, therefore a logical fallacy,
therefore invalid. Since Dawkins doesn't have anything else to throw
at his own straw man, his argument is a total washout.
So much for bombarding us with three dozen clones of his own
simplistic nonsense in order to bog us down in semantics.
He is right, though, theists do always appeal to authority to justify
their adherence to their beliefs, since it is all they have. As to the
existence of God, this demands some sort of definition as to what God
is. Far be it from me to seem to create a strawman by defining God
myself., I invite any theist to do so in the following blank space:
God is ...............................................................
..............................................................................
I'm waiting, but I'll lay heavy odds I can dismiss it instantly as
special pleading.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 02:23:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:17:46 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> suddenly spluttered:
Cutting out all of the crap, let's get to the essence of 'Dawkins''
argument:
theists
accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God.
Which he simply re-iterates in different terms several dozen times.
It is an argument from authority, therefore a logical fallacy,
It's not even as "good" as an argument from authority, such as that
may be.
It is an argument from popularity, drawn from a self-selected sample
of gullible idiots, no less.
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
therefore invalid. Since Dawkins doesn't have anything else to throw
at his own straw man, his argument is a total washout.
So much for bombarding us with three dozen clones of his own
simplistic nonsense in order to bog us down in semantics.
He is right, though, theists do always appeal to authority to justify
their adherence to their beliefs, since it is all they have. As to the
existence of God, this demands some sort of definition as to what God
is. Far be it from me to seem to create a strawman by defining God
myself., I invite any theist to do so in the following blank space:
God is ...............................................................
.............................................................................
I'm waiting, but I'll lay heavy odds I can dismiss it instantly as
special pleading.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Yournameheres personal Cthulhu" |
|
| Title: Re: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 08:09:43 AM |
|
|
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> suddenly spluttered:
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
I make it third, just above argumentum ad pasteum.
------------------------------------------------
Conflict over the exact will/purpose/nature of God cannot ever be
resolved, since there are no facts to go on.
D Silverman FLAHN, SMLAHN
AA #2208
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 10:34:49 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:09:43 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> suddenly spluttered:
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
I make it third, just above argumentum ad pasteum.
Erm, don't you mean 'ad pastaum'?
The FSM will wreak it's hideous vengence upon you blasphemer!
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Wilkins" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 01:47:33 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 08:09:43 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
Michael Gray <fleetg@newsguy.spam.com> suddenly spluttered:
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
I make it third, just above argumentum ad pasteum.
Erm, don't you mean 'ad pastaum'?
The FSM will wreak it's hideous vengence upon you blasphemer!
It is argumentum al dente, and there's an end to it.
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Biohumanities Project
University of Queensland - Blog: evolvethought.blogspot.com
"Darwin's theory has no more to do with philosophy than any other
hypothesis in natural science." Tractatus 4.1122
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
18 Nov 2005 03:23:05 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:17:46 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> suddenly spluttered:
Cutting out all of the crap, let's get to the essence of 'Dawkins''
argument:
theists
accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God.
Which he simply re-iterates in different terms several dozen times.
It is an argument from authority, therefore a logical fallacy,
It's not even as "good" as an argument from authority, such as that
may be.
It is an argument from popularity, drawn from a self-selected sample
of gullible idiots, no less.
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
"Argumentum ex Googleum"... meaning "Google shows up two million hits when I type
in 'Intelligent Design'; therefore it *must* be true!
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"[W]e have never held that moral disapproval, without any other asserted
state interest, is a sufficient rationale under the Equal Protection
Clause to justify a law that discriminates among groups of persons."
- Sandra Day O`Conner, _Lawrence v Texas_
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=02-102
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
19 Nov 2005 03:23:34 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Nov 2005 07:23:05 -0800, Gregory Gadow <techbear@serv.net>
wrote:
Michael Gray wrote:
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:17:46 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
"Richard Dawkins" <Dawkins@Hell.com> suddenly spluttered:
Cutting out all of the crap, let's get to the essence of 'Dawkins''
argument:
theists
accept the testimony of others as valid evidence for the existence of God.
Which he simply re-iterates in different terms several dozen times.
It is an argument from authority, therefore a logical fallacy,
It's not even as "good" as an argument from authority, such as that
may be.
It is an argument from popularity, drawn from a self-selected sample
of gullible idiots, no less.
Argumentum ad populum is the second lowest form of intellectually
appeal, just above threats of violence as a debating technique, and
slightly below Argumentum ex Googleum.
"Argumentum ex Googleum"... meaning "Google shows up two million hits when I type
in 'Intelligent Design'; therefore it *must* be true!
Exactly.
As practiced by all good creationists.
Swamp the response with links, and only links, to hundreds of sites,
(not cites), and drown your interlocutor in the internet version of
"The Flood".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Article:The logical flaws of Atheism |
17 Nov 2005 07:59:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:17:46 +0000, "<Yournamehere>'s personal
Cthulhu" <yournamehere@martyrdom.org> wrote:
He is right, though, theists do always appeal to authority to justify
their adherence to their beliefs, since it is all they have. As to the
existence of God, this demands some sort of definition as to what God
is. Far be it from me to seem to create a strawman by defining God
myself., I invite any theist to do so in the following blank space:
God is ...............................................................
.............................................................................
I'm waiting, but I'll lay heavy odds I can dismiss it instantly as
special pleading.
It can't be done without blatant question begging.
There are two families of definitions
The first, typified by Merriam Webster is "the Being perfect in power,
wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the
universe"
But what "the Being perfect....."? This is blatant question begging.
It presumes its existence, and then that everybody is Islamic, Jewish
or Christian.
All the others are defined in terms of who believes in them. Similarly
astrology, spiritualism etc are "supposed" not actual.
The second, typified by the Encarta print edition is "the being
believed in monotheistic religions such as Judaism, Islam, and
Christianity to be the all-powerful all-knowing creator of the
universe, worshiped as the only god".
The OED gives a slightly watered down version of this.
But this second family is acceptable for everybody, not just creator
monotheists.
The downside for its believers, is that it limits the scope of "the
being/creator/etc" to within those religions. The believers see it as
real.
The qualifier of "belittled in monotheistic religions....." makes it a
belief outside them, not "the being/creator/etc".
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
