|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 07:27:06 [Permalink]
|
Dear Kil, H. Humbert made the appeal to popularity on page 3. It was right after a quotation from you. I admit the error and apologize.
Aligning yourself with "others" is however an appeal to the majority of your followers. |
 |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
 Posted - 08/25/2011 : 07:36:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dr. Mabuse, This from from page 2 of my copy of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. "Perhaps you feel that agnosticism is a reasonable position, but that atheism is just as dogmatic as religious belief? (Well do you, Dr. Mabuse, |
You are definitly displaying the same dogmatism as religious believers.
If, so, I hope that Chapter 2 will change your mind, by persuading you that 'the God Hypothesis' is a scientific hypothesis..."
On page 46."Meanwhile I turn to agnosticism, and the erroneous notion that the existence or non-existence is an untouchable question, forever beyond the reach of science."
Buy the book for more of the same Dr. Mabuse. |
As Dave W. have already pointed out, you have obviously misunderstood what Dawkins is talking about. None the less, I promise you that at some point in the future I will read The God Delusion. I have already read The Greatest Show on Earth, and I liked it very much.
I found your straw-man comparison of me to a Christian odious and insulting... |
You really need to read up on your logical fallacies, because that wasn't a fallacy. It was an observation, which was also confirmed by others. Which ironically meets three requirements of the scientific process: 1 observation, 2 a hypothesis that you're a creationist in atheist clothing, 3 repeatability (several other members confirmed the observation).
The only thing we need now is falsifiability, which is easily accomplished:
Creationists refuse to change their minds about their mis-characterization of their ideological opponents. If Officiant admits that he has been wrong about what an agnostic is, and changes his mind about it, then my theory that he's a creationist in atheist clothing is falsified.
If that happens, I will owe Officiant an apology.
as you no doubt intended it to be. |
It's a little late for you to start complaining about civility, since you came in isulting us in your first post, and you haven't stopped...
You have gravely insulted me by insisting that I believe in a god because of fear of missing out on an afterlife. That's a lie by you about me and my motivations.
| I'm winning this argument. |
No you're not, but you're too arrogant to realise that.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 07:37:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Kil, H. Humbert made the appeal to popularity on page 3. It was right after a quotation from you. I admit the error and apologize.
Aligning yourself with "others" is however an appeal to the majority of your followers.
|
That's absurd. Saying that I don't feel the need to repeat what has already been said is not an appeal to popularity or any other kind of fallacy. Not even close. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:14:11 [Permalink]
|
| Dear Dr. Mabuse, I read up on logical fallacies as you suggested. From www.nizkor.org The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This is exactly what you did in comparing me to a Christian creationist. Under appeal to popularity I found this: It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. You said, "several other members confirmed the observation)." Hoist on your own petard Doctor. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:33:24 [Permalink]
|
Officiant:
I found this: It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. You said, "several other members confirmed the observation)." |
It's an observation. Several of us have noticed that you argue like a creationist within the context of this thread. It's not a fallacy. If you don't think it's okay for us to compare notes, that's not our problem. Its only stating that several of us have noticed in your style, independently of each other, that some of the hallmarks of creationist argumentation are present in your debating style. I don't think you're a creationist. I just think you argue like one.
And heaven knows, we have had enough experience arguing with creationists to know their style. We have been doing it for well over a decade now. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:36:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dr. Mabuse, I read up on logical fallacies as you suggested. From www.nizkor.org The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This is exactly what you did in comparing me to a Christian creationist. Under appeal to popularity I found this: It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. You said, "several other members confirmed the observation)." Hoist on your own petard Doctor.
|
Pot, meet Kettle. Are you that blind that you cannot see that is what YOU have been doing for 8 pages worth of discussion?!
Kil,
I'm still calling troll on this one. There is no possible way anyone can be this blind. No possible way. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 08:58:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dr. Mabuse, I read up on logical fallacies as you suggested. From www.nizkor.org The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This is exactly what you did in comparing me to a Christian creationist. Under appeal to popularity I found this: It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. You said, "several other members confirmed the observation)." Hoist on your own petard Doctor.
|
Pot, meet Kettle. Are you that blind that you cannot see that is what YOU have been doing for 8 pages worth of discussion?!
Kil,
I'm still calling troll on this one. There is no possible way anyone can be this blind. No possible way.
|
Oh, yes way.
Ever argue with a LaRouchie?
It's like that.
Someone who so religiously protects their percieved superiority over the "unsaved agnostics" that they must ignore vast swaths of argumentation and evidence provided which show that not to be the case. They are so invested in this mindset (much like the Fundies "if you don't believe like we do you are going to hell" bit) that they can brook no challenge.
This sort of Evangelical Atheism has even caused him to lose membership in a Humanist organization. Since his investment does not allow him to accept that his position may be wrong, he instead invents a perscution complex like some Fundies do about Christianity.
Oh, and I discovered why Officiant wasn't allowed to re-up with Humanist Canada (Ontario branch).
From their website
"Our Values
To uphold honesty, reason, critical thinking, and cooperation, in every facet of human interdependence.
To encourage the efforts of Humanists and Humanism-focused organizations in Canada.
To support initiatives and programs that advance Humanism and secularism.
To provide non-religious ceremonies for life events such as weddings and funerals through our certified Officiants."
Looks like they declined to have him as a member due to his violating the first value. Critical thinking is not his strong point. Nor is honesty. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
| Edited by - Valiant Dancer on 08/25/2011 09:12:23 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 09:13:03 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. |
That's precisely what you're doing regarding agnostics.| This is exactly what you did in comparing me to a Christian creationist. |
No, that was mockery, not an argument. Your statements have been demonstrated to be wrong already, through calm, reasoned logic and evidence. There's nothing particularly funny about being wrong per se. The fact that your behavior mimics that of creationists is how you go from just being wrong to being a pathetic, pompous, willfully ignorant absurdity. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Fripp
SFN Regular
USA
727 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 11:41:10 [Permalink]
|
I've just been watching and I will go back to lurker mode after this post... but isn't the very title of this topic (which you created) an ad hominem attack? One could argue that it is also a Straw Man. Don't the same rules apply to you?
Later... enjoy your ignorance. |
"What the hell is an Aluminum Falcon?"
"Oh, I'm sorry. I thought my Dark Lord of the Sith could protect a small thermal exhaust port that's only 2-meters wide! That thing wasn't even fully paid off yet! You have any idea what this is going to do to my credit?!?!"
"What? Oh, oh, 'just rebuild it'? Oh, real [bleep]ing original. And who's gonna give me a loan, jackhole? You? You got an ATM on that torso LiteBrite?" |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 12:07:42 [Permalink]
|
Dear Dave W., Science and logic are inextricably moving you closer to my position as a Dawkins category 7. Strong atheist. You agree with Dawkins and he is "in category 6, but leaning towards 7-I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." When you finally shake off all the shackles of superstition I will welcome you to this milestone in your evolution as a secular humanist.
Dawkins says he is content to "live my life on the assumption that he is not there." This apathetic viewpoint doesn't work anymore In a world festering with religious conflict where you not safe any where from Muslims who want to die as martyrs you can't hide your head in the sand. Letterman has a fatwa. Muslims will ignore the Ontario Education Act, conduct religious exercises and pray in our public schools because agnostic school board members approve.
You should be man enough to admit you were wrong-headed to use a Straw Man argument compare me to a Christian creationist. You have compounded the error with yet another logical fallacy; the appeal to ridicule. Your futile attempt to pass this off as mockery is transparent and just lame. Man up Dave.
|
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 13:19:19 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dude says some of those claims are in principle untestable. This is wishful thinking. Science can examine anything. |
I said
...test the claim that there is a god that controls things |
Officiant said
To answer your medieval question about a controlling God I need to know if He was responsible for the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Holocaust,cancer,leprosy and child molesting. Is your God an insane bloodthirsty monster? |
Again: you have claimed that science can examine anything. So, test the claim that there is a god that controls things. Since science can examine anything, you don't need to know if said god was responsible for the inquisition etc.
Go on...
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 13:38:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
Dear Dave W., Science and logic are inextricably moving you closer to my position as a Dawkins category 7. Strong atheist. You agree with Dawkins and he is "in category 6, but leaning towards 7-I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden." When you finally shake off all the shackles of superstition I will welcome you to this milestone in your evolution as a secular humanist. |
If you're an example of a secular humanist, I will make it a point to avoid becoming one. I would never knowingly join any club which would have you as a member.
But I'll tell you what: you go ahead and get Dawkins to become a category 7, and then I'll reconsider my position. Not because I follow Dawkins in every way, but because he will undoubtedly have an extremely compelling argument for changing his mind, one which will merit examination, at the very least.| Dawkins says he is content to "live my life on the assumption that he is not there." This apathetic viewpoint doesn't work anymore |
Dawkins is anything but apathetic about religion.| In a world festering with religious conflict... |
Yes, we all know that you cannot discriminate between "religion" and "faith," not even on a philosophical level, and so think that any academic interest in the god question equates to aiding and abetting your religious enemies.| You should be man enough to admit you were wrong-headed to use a Straw Man argument compare me to a Christian creationist. |
It wasn't a straw man, because it wasn't an argument. I didn't say that you're wrong because you act like a creationist. I said you are pathetic because you act like a creationist.| You have compounded the error with yet another logical fallacy; the appeal to ridicule. |
Again, I didn't say you are wrong because you're ridiculous. Learn what an argument is, and how fallacies work in relation to them, then try again.| Your futile attempt to pass this off as mockery is transparent and just lame. Man up Dave. |
You go ahead and lead by example: admit that you lied about what Dawkins wrote in The God Delusion. It's obvious to everyone else here. Are you too much of a coward, or are you a man who accepts responsibility for his misdeeds? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 18:08:21 [Permalink]
|
Dave W., I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. Groucho Marx. Not very original there Dave. Science and logic will compel you and Dawkins to evolve into strong atheists and leave wimpy agnosticism dead and still like a skunk at the side of the road.
I don't know the difference between religion and faith. Please explain it. I do know that metaphysics has nothing to do with real physics or practical reality and science is the only way to obtain knowledge.
I am insulted that you and Kil insist I am lying. I am not infallible. I make mistakes just like you did with your straw man argument compounded by the appeal to ridicule. I don't have to lie to defend strong atheism. There is nothing else. Just your woowoo and a childish dependency on the supernatural as Albert Ellis said
I quoted Dawkins directly from The God Delusion. Please copy and paste these alleged lies.
What do you suppose would be the harm in basing your belief system in practical reality and the best available scientific information we have right now and just ignore Kil and his California woowoo based on dependency in the science of the future?
You skeptics have called me every name in the book. It has been quite vicious just like Muslims reacting to cartoons in Denmark.
I'm sure with the anger expressed you all would gladly have me burnt at the stake as an unbeliever in your precious pseudo intellectual agnosticism. Please reply. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 18:30:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Officiant
You skeptics have called me every name in the book. It has been quite vicious just like Muslims reacting to cartoons in Denmark. |
 He starts the thread with insults, but now he plays the innocent martyr. He does argue exactly like a creationist!
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Officiant
Skeptic Friend
166 Posts |
Posted - 08/25/2011 : 18:46:34 [Permalink]
|
| Dear H. Humbert, There is no substance here. You are reduced to spiteful rhetoric. Shame on you. I know you can do better work if you just apply yourself. Please answer the question I asked Dave W. What do you suppose would be the harm in basing your belief system in practical reality and the best available scientific information we have right now and just ignore Kil and his California woowoo based on a dependency in the science of the future? |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Cowardly Agnostics
Topic Locked
