The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-11-2013, 07:06 PM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
(22-11-2013 06:45 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Joe, take a look at this one page. It's very basic and in doing so you'll know what your words and probably world view are lacking. Honesty is the best policy. You know why you don't find that in the bible. That's because the book is largely a pack of lies wrapped up in a nice church suit and sold to the gullible.

http://voices.yahoo.com/phrase-origins-h...16892.html

When you honestly try to find the origins of a phrase for example, you don't start with what you assume and try to prove that true or to discredit any other source that goes against your assumption, instead you look for the truth. You examine evidence, list your sources and evaluate any claims with skeptical critical thinking.

If you start out with an honest approach, you'll arrive with a more truthful answer.

Okay? Now why don't YOU explain what it is my words are 'lacking'.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2013, 07:19 PM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
That entire article seemed to me to be nothing more than a vast (to borrow a phrase from an esteemed colleague) word salad that boils down to nothing more than this tried and tired argument.




But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-11-2013, 08:09 PM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
(22-11-2013 06:10 PM)joecalintz Wrote:  None of you can refute the article's impeccable logic.

Lolz. Troll. Tongue

It's a 1, 2, 3, 716 argument. It's like, there's a noise in the bush, but my cat's here, and my dog's over there; therefore, brontosaurus! Ah, no.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
22-11-2013, 08:25 PM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
(22-11-2013 08:09 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  It's a 1, 2, 3, 716 argument.

It's certainly no 42.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like evenheathen's post
22-11-2013, 08:34 PM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
(22-11-2013 06:10 PM)joecalintz Wrote:  None of you can refute the article's impeccable logic.

"My logic is undeniable."




It's Special Pleadings all the way down!


Magic Talking Snakes STFU -- revenantx77


You can't have your special pleading and eat it too. -- WillHop
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 03:55 AM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
Why do theists come here to proselytize ?

Joe what's-yer-face, we're not those who've yet to hear the good news, we're those who've heard the good news, taken a good long look, and told the rabbi or the imam or the friggin two-bit priest to take their sacred texts and get bent. Go find some twits on a religious forum if you want people to agree with you.

OTOH I guess you're either a. sincere, and here to wage holy war - in that case be aware that we're all rolling our eyes and laughing at you 'cos you are being ridiculous or b. a douche - in that case be aware that we couldn't give a shit about you.

Have a nice day Thumbsup

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
23-11-2013, 04:00 AM (This post was last modified: 23-11-2013 11:17 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
The article is a complete pile of rubbish.

A. Totally false. The meanings of words are a series of learned events, which can be observed and documented, checked, and adjusted, as humans learn in each language system, what, in general, the meanings are to others in their community.
Assertion "A" has no supporting evidence offered, (simply attempted proof by assertion). In fact Neuro-science has mountains of evidence for how learning processes proceed. Linguistics as a science makes NONE of the assumptions the article asserts.

B. Sets up an incoherent straw-man, makes assertions which have not been demonstrated. The use of the word "metaphysics" in this context makes the SAME assumption the article states as false. Saying "the question of consciousness is "notorious", is meaningless, and adds nothing to any discussion about the process by which the words, (in "A") are learned. Individual brains are observed to learn (by completely natural processes), words, and their meanings. The meanings are stored by known natural processes, (the Biochemistry of memory).

C. Keeps saying "we aren't even there yet", but never actually gets anywhere.
No examples offered. Humans learn things. Some learned things have predictive value, some don't. At this point it's impossible to say what the POINT even is the rant is trying to make, (which the piece never actually gets to). Seems to be a thinly veiled attempt to assert a form of Idealism, (which has been thoroughly debunked). Atheists don't MAKE "claim two", so the article is now jousting at windmills. There is no difference between , (nor has it been demonstrated), "atheist minds", (and "non atheist minds"), nor has the piece even attempted to define a difference. Humans ALL learn in the same way. Neuro-science knows what that is. Sensory input is organized, and integrated, and makes perfectly predictable statements, and they are verified ALL THE TIME. The claim is demonstrably false.

D. Neuroscience says nothing of the sort. Learning is the OPPOSITE of "random firings". Demonstrates complete ignorance of Neuro-biology, and even basic Psychology. No atheist, (or anyone else educated in science) claims the brain is a set of "random chemical reactions". No statement concerning "metaphysics" needs be made, and in fact if someone want to go down that rabbit hole, the validity of "metaphysics" must FIRST be demonstrated. It is not the job of science to demonstrate the "validity of pragmatism and the error of metaphysics". Obviously the writer of the article has no clue how science works, or what scientists do all day, and presumes science makes claims it NEVER does. More jousting at windmills. Just a bunch of whining as the old farts are pissed that in 2013 arguments are no longer couched in the (ancient) terms they feel most comfortable.

E. More claims concerning things science NEVER does.
a. The universe has been proven to be non-intuitive.
b. Science makes no claim concerning "meaning", or the need for meaning. The author reveals his desperation, and presuppositionalist NEEDS. He demands "meaning" from the universe.

In short, incoherent Presuppositionalist trash. The piece is worthless. The last paragraph is a boring rehash of all the old moral claims made by those who don't know where and how morality arises, and a childish DEMAND for "meaning" where there is none. It's also an admission that plugging in a "god" (without stating which one) is the ONLY way that writer can make sense of the universe. Too bad. If that's the extent of his creativity, it's his problem. He doesn't get to impose his lack of creativity and courage onto others.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Bucky Ball's post
23-11-2013, 05:37 AM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
http://jaysanalysis.com/2013/11/12/athei...ndication/

AFFS, why did I read that, To summarize their arguments is GOD OF THE FUCKING GAPS !!! , Why it took someone 60+ lines to say that FFS.
I wonder If the OP Troll even read it..

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
23-11-2013, 05:39 AM
RE: The “new” atheists: rehashing old, bad arguments against other bad arguments.
(23-11-2013 05:37 AM)sporehux Wrote:  I wonder If the OP Troll even read it..

Guy prolly whacks off to it. Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like houseofcantor's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: