Intelligent posts from jakesteele: fact or opinion?
No, this is atheism in your mind. I do not think that way, and the number of atheists who do is in the vast minority. I will not claim there is no god. Of course, since I have yet to be shown even so much as a reason to believe there is a god, much less proof of one, I have no problem with acting as if there is no god.
So far, you’re the only one that’s made a claim. And you haven’t supported it.
It’s not my fault you missed the funny part.
There are two issues here. The first is the complete falsehood that we believers in psi and related things have never engaged in a genuine debate here. This was awhile back (at least as far as my participation is concerned; I gave up years ago), but I and others carefully posted the cites and made the careful arguments and rebutted the rebuttals and all that good stuff–all the while putting up with truly atrocious behavior from the skeptical side. I mean, really bad stuff, where the MO was to beat up and bait posters until they flamed out and got banned from the site a la SnakeSpirit
Okay, this is the issue of who ruined it and how. Sure, every sin committed by the skeptical side has been committed by the believing side–but that fact has to be seen in context. At most my side would have three competent debaters in a thread (i.e., not lekatt), usually fewer, often only one, whereas we would face a horde of really quite vicious skeptics and fellow travelers, many of whom wanted nothing more than to hold an auto de fe and be rid of us. It is hard to keep one’s cool in such a situation, and I kept mine at times, lost it at times, and finally–like everyone in my side does here eventually–gave up.
So, again, I entered the thread to warn Jake and put what he was experiencing here in context. I think the behavior of the skeptics in this thread has been pretty poor yet altogether typical of what I’ve experienced, and if the skeptics judge it to be A-OK, then that’s only further evidence of what’s wrong here.
::: shrug ::: When you are through building that strawman, could you give it to a petting zoo for bedding?
I made no statement that believers in psi and related things never engaged in a genuine debate. When you attack statements that have not been made, you do yourself no good in the discussion.
My specific claim was that your assertion that only atheists have attacked the psi folks is rebutted by the fact that a lot of believers in the spiritual have also challenged the psi folks. Your attempt to make this an “atheist” issue is false and defending psi posters from charges that have not been lodged against them appears to be only an attempt to distract the discussion from your false claim.
Would you like some cheese with that?
You set up your “context” as “good debaters” on one side and “vicious” people on the other. Sorry, that is nothing but spin. (This is particularly true if you want to claim that posters such as SnakeSpirit were calm debaters facing hordes of mouth-foaming atheists, which would be the conclusion to be drawn from your post. SnakeSpirit had a very short fuse and was already establishing a reputation as a mean-spirited flamer, even when he was on the “winning” side of a discussion, even before the first psi discussion in which he got embroiled. In fact, in the very first thread regarding psi in which SnakeSpirit participated, there were a couple of sharp exchanges among other posters that were not directed toward SnakeSpirit (and a couple of interuptions by a poster named Aeschines telling SnakeSpirit that it was all a waste of time because the SDMB was filled with evil skeptics), and then SnakeSpirit began some small personal attacks on other posters who thus far had been quite calm and polite toward him.
Would you be comfortable with an assertion that the behavior of the credulous was pretty poor, here, and typical of the credulous, and if the credulous judge that to be A-OK, then that’s only further evidence of what’s wrong, here?
What has harmed communication on the SDMB has been a willingness of some number of partisans of every political, philosophical, religious, or cultural faction to engage in the demonization of everyone with whom they disagree and the failure of other partisans of the same positions to either tell the mouth-foamers to sit it out or to reach out to the calmer partisans of the “other side” with an offer to simply ignore the screamers on both sides while engaging in calmer discussions, themselves. (Somehow, I do not consider repeatedly interrupting threads to warn one’s philosophical companions that the other side is just too mean to engage to be the sort of thing that promotes actual discussion. YMMV,OC.)
That is a mistaken assumption on your part. Again, neoatheists have emphatically stated as fact, long before I came on the scene, that there is absolutely, beyond all doubt, not a god. I don’t hear “there is no proof so far”, so far. That is an extraordinary claim that is stated as though it’s a proven fact. It is not even remotely similar to paleoatheism which stated, “I see no evidence for God.” Those are two different birds. It boils down to subtle semantics. The former is a statement of fact the latter is an opinion or observation.
Neo’s make an extraordinary claim. When you make a statement of fact you can’t hide behind the fallacy ticket and play on a tilted playing field with the goal posts pushed way out there for the opposition while, at the same time, pulling your goalposts tight to your chest. By stating as fact there is nothing transcendent you level the playing field whether you like it not. Fallacies only apply to the argument, not the conclusion. We don’t know what the conclusion is yet. There are several contenders for the ultimate end-game crown and so far there is no proof that transcendence shouldn’t be considered as one of them.
I have stated over and over again that the concept of transcendence, by definition, is ineffable, incomprehensible and so utterly alien and foreign that it cannot be apprehended by human processes now or ever. As a result, it can’t be quantified in a laboratory. It doesn’t matter whether you believe it or not, that is the definition. Since you don’t believe it, you don’t have the right to define it because in your mind it doesn’t exist and therefore there’s nothing to define.
If you want proof, look around you; the universe. That’s enough probable cause to consider a transcendent aspect to existence. Not a guarantee but a probability that can’t be dismissed out of hand just as the probablility of a mechanistic universe can’t be dismissed.
What makes it an extraordinary claim that there’s no God ? All the evidence points that way. It’s the obvious logical conclusion. I say “there is no God” for the same reason I say “there are no fairies”.
There’s also no reason to think that “transcendence” should be considered a contender for anything.
Then it’s a completely useless concept that no one should consider as an explanation for anything, or say anything about ( since by definition we can say nothing meaningful or useful about such a thing ).
Of course not; that’s the point. Like a lot of modern religious ideas, it’s really nothing but an attempt to fend off science. It’s not actually useful except as a tool for avoiding looking at reality, nor is it a concept that it’s proponents actually believe. If they did, they’d shut up about it because they’d have nothing to say. Instead, they go on and on about all the things they know about the supposedly unknowable.
No, that’s strong evidence against such an “aspect”. Not that it matters, since if such an aspect exists it’s pointless for us humans to bother thinking or talking about it.
Congratulations; you’ve just redefined your mysticism into total irrelevance.
Where are all these ‘neoatheists’ you keep talking about? I don’t see them. I’m certainly not one. In fact, there’s another thread going on right now called 25 things which make it hard for me to believe in God, that doesn’t include any of this ‘neoatheism’. So that means that this argument is useless, and you still need to back up your claim about god’s existence.
It seems as if ineffability and incomprehensibility are the only qualities of transcendence you have given us. How do you know it is ineffable and incomprehensible? Did you define it that arbitrarily, so no one could say anything at all about it? If it’s so ineffable and incomprehensible, how can you define it, much less understand it?
Huh? I have to believe something exists before I have the right to define it? Actually, since all you’ve given us is ‘ineffable’ and incomprehensible’, you haven’t defined either.
Sigh. If you want to use the universe as a reason to believe you’re going to have to show why. Just because you think you see spirits and gods and reasons and whatever else when you look at the universe doesn’t mean everyone sees them. When I look at the universe, I see just the universe.
Besides, the universe can in fact be quantified in a lab. So I guess it has nothing to do with your transcendence then.
You neoatheism crap isn’t worth a response, but, this, this is hilarious. Your position is so tenuous and indefensible that you’re trying to ban all opponents from debate. Wow, you must be certain that your position is wrong, to be that fearful of letting the opposition bring pins close to your little soap bubble of belief.
Oh, and:
unicorn
Noun
Creature resembling a horse with a single straight horn protruding from its forhead.
bigfoot
Noun
A longhaired primate larger that a man that walks upright.
smurf
Noun
A small blue bipedal creature, intelligent and capable of speech.
Shall I continue?
All this stuff about the skeptics supposedly persecuting the believers.
I have to say: I’m an atheist, but I would love NDEs to be genuine evidence of an outside reality. How cool would that be? Instead of just living a pitiful few decades I get to move on to Universe 2.0.
Honestly, when believers are asked for any reason to suppose their claims are true, there’s still a part of me that wishes that today would be the day when they’d come up with something concrete. A solid argument if not actual evidence.
But it never happens. Just more extraordinary claims backed up by little more than wishful thinking.
Note though, I’m not saying that the believers are obligated to come up with anything. I have nothing to say to someone who says “I believe I experienced the afterlife. I have no evidence, and I know it’s irrational, but still…”
Instead constant accusations of bias from the other side are always going to get a response.
Seconded. As stated before, I’d be thrilled if some of this woo-woo stuff was real. Not the afterlife so much, since it’s usually described as pretty unappealing, but man, I’d like me some TK.
Of course, I’d also like the ability to teleport and to make objects appear from nowhere just by willing it. But nobody’s even claiming to offer those abilities. 
And, it just occured to me to wonder, what do the proponents of NDEs and psi and god and whatnot actually think is the motivation for us skeptics? We’ve been accused of having a fanatical devotion to materialism, but what on earth do they think would inspire a person to religiously and mindlessly adhere to something as mundane and special-rewardless as unadorned reality? There are no rewards for ‘preaching the lack-of-faith’; in fact, we assert that we’re no better than anybody else regarding afterlives and special magical powers. There is no lack-of-god instructing us to go out and preach un-faith to those who lack it.
We’ve been accused of having leaders and prophets from Dawkins to Darwin, whereas in reality Darwin never told any of us what to do, and Dawkins is just some guy, one of the leaderless mass of us who happens to be really loud about it. He’s no more our leader than the guy with the signboard and the crazy eyes on the street corner is the leader of Christianity.
I guess we’re accused of having leaders because the idea that so many people could have come upon this worldview on their own, without being ordered to do it by some master, is frightening. If all skeptics are sheeplike followers it levels the playing field and lowers skepticism to the level of a rival religion with a couple of kooky leaders; if all of us came up with it on our own through independent personal analysis, the chances of us all being kooky drops dramatically.
In actual fact, of course, we do all accept skepticism on our own, for the simple fact that it is indeed the most rational approach. Everyone assumes that things that aren’t supported by evidence aren’t real; otherwise we’d all hide in our houses in terror of the millions of possible invisible monsters that we can imagine might possibly be lurking just outside our doors. Everyone refrains from strolling off the nearest cliff despite the imagineable possibility that they might suddenly develop the ability to fly halfway down. Nobody deliberately tries to walk through walls despite the fact that they might have that ability and not know it.
No, everyone is a skeptic at heart. Some people just make…exceptions.
And why do we argue for skepticism? Well, for one, because we’re interested in the truth. Both abstractly (fighting ignorance, and all that), and also pragmatically. Most of us would be thrilled to have the ability to ask spirits for tomorrow’s lotto numbers, but we’re not interested if it’s not real. So we find it frustrating when people make grand and interesting claims but can’t back them up with fact, evidence, or, well, truth. For another, because we don’t like seeing people walking into walls, huddling in their houses, or walking off cliffs. People waste a lot of time and energy and money on harebrained theories, and some of us don’t like watching that, expecially in those we care about. Which isn’t even talking about when the believers start trying to push innocent bystanders, or us off of cliffs, with religiously motivated predjudice, legislation, or wars.
Neo-atheism
From Conservapedia
(Redirected from Neo-Atheism)
Jump to: navigation, search
Neo-atheism is the acerbic, shrill polemics of writers like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens who disparage and refute the truth of the Bible. Unlike their predecessors, they exhibit both a ferocity and antagonism to religion which borders on the manic and seeks to demonize the traditionalist and fundamentalist strains of Christianity and creationism. It also promulgates an excessive zeal for evolution or Darwinism. This is exemplifed by Dawkins being known as Darwin’s rottweiller.
The contrast between “traditional” atheists and neo-atheists is that the former merely studied philosophy and rarely pushed their views on anyone, whereas the modern neo-atheists are essentially anti-religious activists.
Non-religious “fundamentalism”
Some refer to any literal-minded philosophy with pretense of being the sole source of objective truth as fundamentalist, regardless of whether it is usually called a religion.
fundamentalist materialists, alleging that they dogmatically dismiss any evidence that conflicts with materialism as hallucination or fraud.[
I have posted links to sites that show you sources of the word neoatheism. The term was not created on a random word generator, I did not create the term. It is the same thing as when the term “Feminazi” was coined to describe a militant, aggressive aspect of feminism that symbolized how the movement had morphed.
Whether you like or agree with the term, that is how others perceive you. It’s there out in the common lexicon and there’s nothing you can do about it. You fellows and others of your ilk have created terms like, woo woo, fools, superstitious fools, deluded, garbage, idiots etc. all of which are pejoratives aimed at people and groups that don’t toe your party line. Everybody in kindergarten learns: If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
transcendent
1 a: exceeding usual limits : surpassing b: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience cin Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge2: being beyond comprehension3: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 2
ineffable
1 a: incapable of being expressed in words : indescribable <ineffable joy> b: unspeakable <
metaphysical
of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses
I have stated this over and over again and again: According to your instruments, which are better than before but not as good as they will be, there is no quantifiable evidence of an ineffable aspect to existence. You seem to be content with that, but neither atheism nor science has yet to explain existence and the origin of existence. You can’t tell me how, what or why there is existence, let alone how it works. You believe there is nothing ineffable about existence yet you have no answer as to how existence came to be. As an example of an inexplicable, ineffable paradox: what happened before the big bang? Did something come from nothing? Was there nothing? What is nothing in that context? Can ‘nothing’ be defined and grasped by our finite minds? Or was there something? Would that something be definable and quantifiable? Did existence spontaneously materialize? How did it and why did it spontaneously materialize? Is it infinity with no beginning and no end? Is infinity defined as “always has been and always will be” kind of like a biblical explanation? These are mind boggling concepts that the human mind has yet to be able to wrap its head around and may never be able to.
If you can’t tell me what it is you can’t tell me what it ain’t. You can ‘believe’ there is no transcendent aspect to existence but you can’t know at this point in time. It is a wide open field. Ineffability is just as much a contender as anything else because we may never know the answer to those huge questions. If we did, that would make us omniscient. We would know everything there is to know.
Now once again, you and your cohorts are saying that anybody, including brilliant scientists, who perceive that their might be a transcendent aspect to existence are superstitious fools, they believe in garbage, they are woo woo people. Think about that for a minute, a very small, musicale, predominately young segment of the population is telling the rest of the world they are wrong and the CSIOPtic/atheists are right. That has the sulfurous whiff of fundamentalism.
I think what this all boils down to is you want me to say, “Well, because there is no evidence, you’re right and I am wrong, therefore, I will convert to you way of thinking.”
:rolleyes: You actually take that site seriously ?
Conservapedia isn’t the “common lexion”. It’s a site so awful that the first reaction of many people who see anything from it is “this is a parody site, right ?”
It’s not “The party line” that’s being violated, but the facts and basic reasoning. And except for possibly “woo woo” none of those terms were created by any particular intellectual viewpoint.
And there’s no rational reason to think there is any. And if there is, it’s useless to think or talk about, by your own definitions.
Of course I can. Just because we don’t know something, doesn’t mean we can’t rule out some ideas as impossible or highly unlikely. Ideas like yours.
No, it’s not. There’s no evidence for it, and it’s an utterly useless and meaningless explanation for anything.
Yes, because all the evidence is against them.
Wow, a new low for me to see someone quoting conservapedia as their source on SD.
Jesus riding a dinosaur from an old conservapedia article.
You gotta be kidding me. You’re quoting Conservapedia? Please. Uncyclopedia is a more reliable source than Conservapedia.
Um, so? I have never bothered to argue whether it was a real word or not, because it doesn’t matter. You’re are not arguing with what you call ‘neo atheists’, so the whole thing is moot.
Sorry, but you’re wrong. I have never asserted that god does not exist, and so I do not fall under your definition. We didn’t create most of the words you named, they just seemed to fit so we used them. Woo-woo is ours, yup. So, what, we can’t make words up to? Like you said, if you can’t take it…
So you can define something that is incapable of being expressed in words? Neat trick.
So? Maybe there isn’t one?
Science can actually tell you quite a lot of how it works. That’s what it does. How do you know there’s a why? Maybe there isn’t. Science tells us a lot about the universe. What does religion tell us? So far, nothing.
So, um, how do you know anything about the big bang? Gosh, it sure was nice of science to find that for us, as religion totally and completely missed it. The answer to a lot of these questions is, and I know you won’t like this: we don’t know. And unlike religion, science is ok with that answer. We don’t know everything. Science, once again unlike religion, has never pretended to have all the answers. We have evidence for the big bang. Lots of it. We don’t have any evidence of the world being made from the bodies of gods or monsters, or anyone wishing it into existence, or the world being formed out of chaos, or any of the 1000s of attempts religion has made.
You’re mistaking possibility with probability. Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s probable. Ineffability, which as far as I know means it can’t be described with words, doesn’t have any evidence behind it, so it doesn’t really have much probability. When we can find some evidence for transcendent things, then we can upgrade it’s probability, up from ‘probably not’, where it’s at right now. Oh, and I do not believe there is no transcendent aspect, I merely don’t believe. I don’t have any belief about it, as there is no reason to believe anything about it.
:rolleyes: Only in your own mind. You’re the one who sees dogmatic materialism everywhere.
I don’t care what you say, really. We’ve asked you to back up your assertions with evidence, and you have completely and totally failed to do so. Instead, you’ve screamed persecution and viciously attacked pure strawmen and done everything possible except actually prove your point. I don’t expect you to even acknowledge this, based on your performance so far. You could have actually bothered to debate the subject at hand like a rational human being, but instead chose to go off and babble about everything but the subject at hand, as so many representatives of your type of thinking seem to do. I’m not here to convert you, I think you’ve shown that would be a waste of time. I’m here to show others the faults in your logic, so they don’t make the same mistakes.
See threads I’ve already posted about neoatheism. Conservapedia had the best definition that encapsulated what the others said. Just look up neo-atheism or new atheism and you’ll see plenty.
Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
And this differs from employing the coinage, (nearly a nonce word), “Neo-atheism” in what way?
Your recent claims appear to be appeals to popularity in which even the popularity is diminished because they are only employed by one small wing of one small segment of a single provincial group of people talking to themselves.
Neo-atheism does not appear in Merriam-Webster, Random House, American Heritage, or the Oxford English Dictionary. It has all the earmarks of a word invented by a clique for internal use, having no meaning except to identify people they do not like. (C’mon. Look at the “entry” on the Conservapedia and tell me that that was written by anyone with an acquaintance with real language used in the real world.)
All these attacks and you still fail to provide a single explanation–or even a guess–about your NDE.
Today, 08:51 PM
hotflungwok
Guest Join Date: Nov 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by jakesteele
Neo-atheism
From Conservapedia
- You gotta be kidding me. You’re quoting Conservapedia? Please. Uncyclopedia is a more reliable source than Conservapedia.
***1. Fallacy: Appeal to Ridicule
I posted some threads from various journalistic sources that same exactly the same thing. You are attacking the messenger without addressing the point.
Quote:
I have posted links to sites that show you sources of the word neoatheism. The term was not created on a random word generator, I did not create the term. It is the same thing as when the term “Feminazi” was coined to describe a militant, aggressive aspect of feminism that symbolized how the movement had morphed.
2. Um, so? I have never bothered to argue whether it was a real word or not, because it doesn’t matter. You’re are not arguing with what you call ‘neo atheists’, so the whole thing is moot.
***2. You are a neoatheist whether you like it or not. You along with many other young people and many older people have jumped on the bandwagon, the trend, that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins started with the publication of their books. If they hadn’t written those books none of this would be happening.
Quote:
Whether you like or agree with the term, that is how others perceive you. It’s there out in the common lexicon and there’s nothing you can do about it. You fellows and others of your ilk have created terms like, woo woo, fools, superstitious fools, deluded, garbage, idiots etc. all of which are pejoratives aimed at people and groups that don’t toe your party line. Everybody in kindergarten learns: If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.
3. Sorry, but you’re wrong. I have never asserted that god does not exist, and so I do not fall under your definition. We didn’t create most of the words you named, they just seemed to fit so we used them. Woo-woo is ours, yup. So, what, we can’t make words up to? Like you said, if you can’t take it…
***3. Of course, you didn’t create fool or true believer, etc. but now use them within the contextual framework of the new wave of neoatheism as pejoratives. I like that, ‘new wave’ ‘new age’ there’s a nice symmetry there.
Quote:
transcendent
1 a: exceeding usual limits : surpassing b: extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience cin Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge2: being beyond comprehension3: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 2
ineffable
1 a: incapable of being expressed in words : indescribable <ineffable joy> b: unspeakable
So you can define something that is incapable of being expressed in words? Neat trick.
Quote:
I have stated this over and over again and again: According to your instruments, which are better than before but not as good as they will be, there is no quantifiable evidence of an ineffable aspect to existence.
4. So? Maybe there isn’t one?
***4. might be, might not be, but to rule it out is not logical or objective.
Quote:
You seem to be content with that, but neither atheism nor science has yet to explain existence and the origin of existence. You can’t tell me how, what or why there is existence, let alone how it works.
Science can actually tell you quite a lot of how it works. That’s what it does. How do you know there’s a why? Maybe there isn’t. Science tells us a lot about the universe. What does religion tell us? So far, nothing.
Quote:
You believe there is nothing ineffable about existence yet you have no answer as to how existence came to be. As an example of an inexplicable, ineffable paradox: what happened before the big bang? Did something come from nothing? Was there nothing? What is nothing in that context? Can ‘nothing’ be defined and grasped by our finite minds? Or was there something? Would that something be definable and quantifiable? Did existence spontaneously materialize? How did it and why did it spontaneously materialize? Is it infinity with no beginning and no end? Is infinity defined as “always has been and always will be” kind of like a biblical explanation? These are mind boggling concepts that the human mind has yet to be able to wrap its head around and may never be able to.
5. So, um, how do you know anything about the big bang? Gosh, it sure was nice of science to find that for us, as religion totally and completely missed it. The answer to a lot of these questions is, and I know you won’t like this: we don’t know. And unlike religion, science is ok with that answer. We don’t know everything. Science, once again unlike religion, has never pretended to have all the answers. We have evidence for the big bang. Lots of it. We don’t have any evidence of the world being made from the bodies of gods or monsters, or anyone wishing it into existence, or the world being formed out of chaos, or any of the 1000s of attempts religion has made.
***5. I’m not talking about eh big bang, I’m talking about BEFORE the big bang, even though the term may not even apply. It may be something that will remain unknowable for all time, and then again, it might not be.
Quote:
If you can’t tell me what it is you can’t tell me what it ain’t. You can ‘believe’ there is no transcendent aspect to existence but you can’t know at this point in time. It is a wide open field. Ineffability is just as much a contender as anything else because we may never know the answer to those huge questions. If we did, that would make us omniscient. We would know everything there is to know.
6. You’re mistaking possibility with probability. Just because it’s possible, doesn’t mean it’s probable. Ineffability, which as far as I know means it can’t be described with words, doesn’t have any evidence behind it, so it doesn’t really have much probability. When we can find some evidence for transcendent things, then we can upgrade it’s probability, up from ‘probably not’, where it’s at right now. Oh, and I do not believe there is no transcendent aspect, I merely don’t believe. I don’t have any belief about it, as there is no reason to believe anything about it.
***7. I can respect that.
Quote:
Now once again, you and your cohorts are saying that anybody, including brilliant scientists, who perceive that their might be a transcendent aspect to existence are superstitious fools, they believe in garbage, they are woo woo people. Think about that for a minute, a very small, musicale, predominately young segment of the population is telling the rest of the world they are wrong and the CSIOPtic/atheists are right. That has the sulfurous whiff of fundamentalism.
8. Only in your own mind. You’re the one who sees dogmatic materialism everywhere.
***8. No, not just in my mind. Many others perceive you that way. That’s why the term neoatheists was coined. I refer you the documentary ‘The Trouble with Atheism’, in particular the part with Peter Akins. That was the sulfurous whiff of fundamentalists. He did Televangelists proud. Also, Dawkins is nicked named ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’. You don’t have enough historical perspective to see it.
Quote:
I think what this all boils down to is you want me to say, “Well, because there is no evidence, you’re right and I am wrong, therefore, I will convert to you way of thinking.”
9. I don’t care what you say, really. We’ve asked you to back up your assertions with evidence, and you have completely and totally failed to do so. Instead, you’ve screamed persecution and viciously attacked pure strawmen and done everything possible except actually prove your point. I don’t expect you to even acknowledge this, based on your performance so far. You could have actually bothered to debate the subject at hand like a rational human being, but instead chose to go off and babble about everything but the subject at hand, as so many representatives of your type of thinking seem to do. I’m not here to convert you, I think you’ve shown that would be a waste of time. I’m here to show others the faults in your logic, so they don’t make the same mistakes.
***1. Slow down, Sparky, I have told you that there is no evidence that you machines, at their current degree of capability, can detect, measure or quantify. Quite frankly, I’m surprised you didn’t take that statement and run with a long time ago and say, ‘There, that’s it, he just proved there’s no proof, case closed!” If I’m screaming persecution and viciously attacking straw men, I’m not debating like a rational human being, and babble about everything but…, and I have so many holes in my logic, why do you and others even bother to respond? I would think that you would have brushed me off a long time ago and labeled me a fake.
The sticking point is this: When I say, “There’s nothing your ‘limited capacity’ machines can measure ‘so far’, that’s the part that sticks in your craw. If I’m so irrational, so illogical with arguments that have more holes in them than cathouses in Thailand do, then why bother?
Here’s a good one for you.
Q. How many neoatheists can you fit into a Volkswagen?
A. None, because the don’t exist, right?
Last edited by hotflungwok; Today at 08:53 PM.
That’s one badly formatted reply.
Fallacy: who cares
I have have stated before that I do not care about the definition. Since you are not arguing with ‘neoatheists’, the entire point is moot. You are introducing something into this discussion that doesn’t belong. Once more, this doesn’t matter, because you are not arguing with neo-atheists. Got it?
No, I’m not. You can scream this till you’re blue in the face (you don’t have far to go), but it won’t make it true. I am not a neoathiest. I do not assert the non-existence of god. You are assigning attributes to me or my argument so you can attack those attributes instead of the real ones. This is a strawman argument, and it is a logical fallacy. It bears repeating, so I’ll try one more time: I am not a neo-atheist.
I don’t need a contextual framework to call a fool a fool or a true believer a true believer. Which is good because I’m not a neo-atheist. Got it yet?
No, but to behave as if it doesn’t exist due to a complete and total lack of evidence for it is perfectly logical and objective. I have never ruled it out. But I behave as if it doesn’t exist.
Um, and? You can’t even talk about things like ‘before the big bang’ without science having investigated and established the big bang. Science did all the work, and now you’re bashing it because it hasn’t found everything yet. Science doesn’t know, and there’s nothing wrong with that, in spite of your questions. You owe the very fact that you can discuss astronomical phenomenon with another human being in another part of the world to science, and most certainly not to religion or any new-agisms.
Which part? And why?
The term ‘neo-atheist’ was coined by people who were upset that those upitty atheists had the temerity to voice their opinions out loud, actually questioning religion’s place on the pedestal it has been perched on for so long now. The only place I see it being used are by hard core conservatives or religious proponents, and it only seems to be used as a pejorative. The number of actual neo-atheists can be counted on the fingers of one hand. You keep naming the same few people over and over again, and then squeal about how they’re everywhere. I have truckloads of historical perspective, way more than you obviously, as you seem to see a handful of loud people as the sum and total of atheism, and attribute everything they say to every atheist in existence. That is called prejudice, painting everything with a wide brush, and some other terms that I’m not sure are kosher under the new rules.
Yeah? So? How do you know that? Sounds like the same old dodge to me. You want to be able to make your claims as fact, but not have to back them up as would normally expected. You wanna claim that the things you believe in can’t be measured? Prove it. Start by proving they exist in the first place, something you have failed to do.
I don’t need to label you, first because personal insults are not allowed in GD, and second because given the way this discussion has gone, I don’t see the need to.
I told you, I’m not doing it for you, but for anyone else who’s reading this. You’re spreading ignorance, and I’m standing by to point it out as it goes past. This is for the people who might read what you posted and think because it’s unchallenged, that it’s true. For those who might think that you have any actual points. And for those who might need something to oppose arguments like yours in the future.