Starboy

I've seen you use it several times as if it were a magic incantation. You see an argument that contains derogatory remarks and QED voila, both the point and the argument are wrong. I've also seen you use it when there was no argument at all. I have to agree with Biff, either you're a pseudo-philosopher or philosophy is as screwed up as it appears to be.

Starboy

HelenM

hd, I'll reply to you on the ~Elsewhere~ thread.

Helen

seebs

Saw that already.

I like Dawkins, and he's got some good ideas, but I think he misses the point. Science and theology do differ substantially; science is more about results, theology more about process. Theology is a kind of philosophy. For all the philosophy we've done since we started writing stuff down, we're no closer to provable or verifiable answers than we were when Heraclitus made the claim that you cannot step in the same river twice. We can still debate that one.

But... *thinking* about philosophy, and *discussing* it, seems to make us better people. So we do it anyway. Theology is a kind of philosophy, not a kind of science.

seebs

I think that *some* atheists have trouble with theology. I know that many atheists are pretty good at it.

Actually, there's a months-old post from Thomas Metcalf I keep meaning to get around to responding to. At least, I think it was from him. In it, he expressed great frustration with my tendency to say "I dunno" on the tough questions. IMHO, this shows a problem with theology; theology is not a science, and we don't generally have definitive answers in it. Instead, we look for *good questions*.

However, the fact remains that many atheists are *not* any good at theology. This isn't to say that J. Random Theist is any good at it either; frankly, it's an arcane field in which most people would rather pick an answer, accept it, and move on, than do any real work.

seebs

I think it "makes sense", in the sense that it's internally consistent, but I think it fails to describe the world I experience. I personally think he's missing the forest for the trees.

I don't really think the latter part of your comment is appropriate, any more than the typical "you would believe in God but you're suppressing it" crap does. It's pretty insulting, and totally unsupported - and indeed, unsupportable, unless you've developed a magic telepathy helmet.

seebs

Ad hominem is a term of art, and is used correctly more often than not. An ad hominem argument is a fallacy where an attack on a person, or the circumstances of a person, are used to substitute for an argument. They're quite popular on both sides in the perennial theist/atheist debates.

Gurdur

My, my, my, we do seem to be seeing some irrational fury here, don't we ?
Let's go through it logically.


Come off it and learn some logic. An ad hominem is a logical fallacy; any pseudo-argument that relies on ad hominems is therefore fallacious.

Logic is ever so much better than irrational venom, Starboy.

Complete nonsense.

I draw attention to both ad hominems and to other logical fallacies.
BTW, the mistake you make here is that you make a completely unsubstantiated assertion --- one without proof.
Why can't you come up with any proof, eh ?
Drawing attention to ad hominems is simply drawing attention to ad hominems.

*snicker*
On this thread here, where we discussed philosophy and science, Starboy, you eventually confessed you didn't know either philosophy or science, and you lack credentials in either .

So on just what basis are you concluding I'm a pseudo-philosopher ?
Especially since I've never claimed to be a philosopher.

Or just on what basis do you have the knowledge necessary to make pronouncements about philosophy ?

And since you appear not to have read it the 3 times I wrote it to you, most of my formal training is in science.


I look forward to your justifications for your pronouncements.
Otherwise they're only irrational statements, aren't they ?

Heathen Dawn

Well, when I see a thing of so simple a type as a child with birth defects, I know that there is no God and that Dawkins’ philosophy is true. Theism takes imagination contrary to reality; atheism just takes two eyes to observe the world around us.

I think it is supportable. See above: were it for observation alone, no-one would believe in God. From the blindness of fate, from the gratuitious evil in the world, it is grindingly obvious that there are no gods whatsoever. Therefore how can one still believe in God? By suppressing observation in favour of an imagined story that sounds so comforting.

Heathen Dawn

We can wait for:

1) The Second Coming of Christ

or for:

2) The day Gurdur stops needling, ridiculing and insulting people.

I dare say the Parousia is by far the more probable of the two.

Gurdur

How funny.
And I thought you were initially all in favour of ridiculing ridiculous claims.

Mind you, the fact you don't like the use of logic is noted, but so what ?


Of course, if you have serious charge of me using insults, you can always contact the mods.
Do you have any serious charge at all ?