
Nicely put, though I would have substituted the word religious for christian.
All religions are manifestations of the same mental disease. I personally don't discriminate amongst them.
Anyone one who can make these two statements in the same post should be treated for the severe psychiatric disorder that they are suffering from...
The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,".
Sure and invisible pink unicorns are really a light shade of magenta! Though depending on whether you are using the RGB or CMYK color model you might perceive something different.
All religions are manifestations of the same mental disease. I personally don't discriminate amongst them.
Anyone one who can make these two statements in the same post should be treated for the severe psychiatric disorder that they are suffering from...
The atheist must also suppress the demands of logic.
"For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen,".
Sure and invisible pink unicorns are really a light shade of magenta! Though depending on whether you are using the RGB or CMYK color model you might perceive something different.
I considered replacing religious for christian, but since the article was published on a christian web site I decided to keep the theme.
Beautifully written! My favorite was this statement: "... many christians support dna evidence to prove identity in trials or to indicate kinship such as paternity, they reject the same techniques, the same types of genetic markers, the same evidence when it proves in the same way that we share a common ancestor with chimpanzees." It's an argument that hadn't occurred to me previously, and I'll certainly use it in the future if the opportunity arises. Not that I have hope of convincing someone of his/her errors, but it's nice to have a reasonable response. I live in the Memphis, Tennessee, area and am often choking on the thick smog of religious belief clouding the air around me.
Two minor quibbles (about presentation, not contents): First, the line spacing on your text was hard to read; would you consider spacing out the lines a bit more for better readability? And second, you used "eek" where I think you meant "eke." As I suspect you'll be heavily linked, you might want to take a look at these two points.
I found your blog via Pharyngula and will continue visiting. Thanks!
Best regards, Carolyn Bahm, Collierville, Tennessee
Thanks for the correction. The argument about DNA evidence was one a once presented in detail on the CARM (Christian Apologetics Research Ministry) Evolution discussion boards. CARM is an evangelical organization and the evolution discussion boards (and atheism discussion boards) can get very heated. A lot of misinformation and junk science are thrown around by true believers. When I presented that argument, it was the first time I had seen the fundies who frequent it remain silent in regard to a pro-evolution argument for hours. In the meantime, I received a lot of kudos from the more science savvy people who frequent the boards. It will be interesting to see what reactions you get from those you decide to present it to. I originally framed it as the lack of outrage at the use of "false science" to obtain convictions and justify actions which have profound impacts on people, shows a lack of intellectual honesty on the part of the anti-evolution crowd. Have fun with it.
The main problem with your essay is that it doesn't rebut the article that set you off. You try to get around its assertions by applying the same argument to Christians, but in the process you leave the the argument intact and proceed to, in your own words, to use the same "semi-coherent paragraph of straw men and unreasoned drivel" for each of your assertions. Congratulations, you've tangled yourself in your own argument.
"I don't expect anyone to accept every point I present within the text of the post, but rather my hope is that they gain insight into the more general point that these one-sided fallacious arguments full of straw men and rhetorical regurgitation rather than honest consideration, are written for the reassurance of the already faithful rather than for the unwashed masses. "
Did you read the above? I intentionally wrote the "rebuttal" to showcase how easy it is to uselessly throw around straw men, name-calling, and opinionated pleas rather than sound debate and call it an argument. I can't believe I wrote this in an attempt to be reflective about the poor quality of such arguments and you whether due to lazy reading or poor comprehension are actual commenting on the poor quality of my argument and that I have "tangled myself" in my own criticism of the original author's approach. Every point the author made was rebutted on the original author's own terms. But, I acknowledged that the more important point I was trying to make was that my "rebuttal" would be without a good argumentative foundation because the original author's points were on the same sort of irrational foundation of misguided views, personal opinions, and broad generalizations.
How far have we fallen when satire has no more room for subtlety?
Did you read the above? I intentionally wrote the "rebuttal" to showcase how easy it is to uselessly throw around straw men, name-calling, and opinionated pleas rather than sound debate and call it an argument. I can't believe I wrote this in an attempt to be reflective about the poor quality of such arguments and you whether due to lazy reading or poor comprehension are actual commenting on the poor quality of my argument and that I have "tangled myself" in my own criticism of the original author's approach. Every point the author made was rebutted on the original author's own terms. But, I acknowledged that the more important point I was trying to make was that my "rebuttal" would be without a good argumentative foundation because the original author's points were on the same sort of irrational foundation of misguided views, personal opinions, and broad generalizations.
How far have we fallen when satire has no more room for subtlety?
Quick Links
Latest Comment
Re: Mindsay Blog Reunion Tour (Day:007): I missed Day:006 - Mine is more boring. ;)
| Terms of Service
| Privacy Policy
faith