Native American DNA
[Post-Mormon Mag.]
Let’s go tubing!
[Palmetto Post-Mor...]
Stampede Get Together!
[Calgary Post-Morm...]
We're going to Camp Quest!
[Switzerland Post-...]
BOSTON Meeting this Sunday at 3pm
[Boston, MA Post-M...]
Why I am a Better Mother
by aworkinprogress
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
exmoinaz
SF Bay Area Monthly Gathering SUNDAY (5/4)
owned
The Mormon Mask
by Born Free
Las Vegas Meetup--Jazz in the Park Saturday May 10 6:30PM
onendagus
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Resignation Letter to My Family
ShadowSage
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Guru Busters
by Flora4
Resignation Letter to My Family
Hbush1987
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
Sunday Morning Hangout at Container Park March 30th
onendagus
Second Wednesdays
Houston
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
Swearing Elder
General Non-Conference: Palmetto State Session
dovahkiyn
February Meetup Sunday the 16th 2:00pm Grand Cafe at Sunset Station
onendagus
Visitors welcome !
priorvej12
Las Vegas meetup Sun Jan 12th 1pm at Milos in Boulder City
onendagus
January 5th- Southern Utah PostMormon Lecture Series
gypsyrose
Book of Mormon Tories
by Tom Donofrio
Book of Mormon Tories
by Nogginus Skepticalus
Native American DNA
by GTM
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Reuben
Ongoing Monthly Gatherings!
Virginia Steve
CALM meet up for June
4bagel
  It gets better! Resources to help with coping
  House Rules for posting on this website
  Why is there sometimes anger here?
  Glossary of Post-Mormon Terms
  Frequently Asked Questions
 
   
2 of 2
2
You might be an atheist and not even know it
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly accept a person's opinion just because he's educated as if that means his word is an authority over others because of it.  I didn't dismiss his article because he was critical of Dawkins but simply found it unconvincing.  I don't just accept people's opinions as true because they have degrees.  Many people lack degrees but are still as knowledgeable as those with degrees.  Many people spend their lives learning but never getting degrees.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

PJ:
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly accept a person's opinion just because he's educated as if that means his word is an authority over others because of it.  I didn't dismiss his article because he was critical of Dawkins but simply found it unconvincing.  I don't just accept people's opinions as true because they have degrees.  Many people lack degrees but are still as knowledgeable as those with degrees.  Many people spend their lives learning but never getting degrees.

 

I happened to find the review quite compelling aside from Nagel's credentials.  I only mentioned that to indicate his expertise which does give him some credibility.  I guess your response reminded me of TBM's who only read a portion of something critical of the church and dismiss it as "anti-mormon" literature.

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

wescape:
PJ:
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly accept a person's opinion just because he's educated as if that means his word is an authority over others because of it.  I didn't dismiss his article because he was critical of Dawkins but simply found it unconvincing.  I don't just accept people's opinions as true because they have degrees.  Many people lack degrees but are still as knowledgeable as those with degrees.  Many people spend their lives learning but never getting degrees.

 

I happened to find the review quite compelling aside from Nagel's credentials.  I only mentioned that to indicate his expertise which does give him some credibility.  I guess your response reminded me of TBM's who only read a portion of something critical of the church and dismiss it as "anti-mormon" literature.

 

I only stopped reading the rest of the article as I didn't feel like wasting any more time on it.  It had nothing to do with being worried about something being "Anti" anything.

 

To me you stating his credentials seems an appeal to authority.  I wasn't appealing to any authority.  I just didn't find his arguments convincing, that's all.

 

The "Closet theist" bit was just the feeling I got from reading what I did of his article.  I apologise for that statement.

 

 

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-04-11

wildonrio:
PJ:
Aldebaran:
wildonrio:

I think I'm an agnostic atheist at this point, which is basically an atheist in embryo I bet.

I actually think you'll find that most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists.  It's a very scientific and reasonable approach to the question.   Scientific theories are the best descriptions we have of reality based on the evidence we have at the moment, but there is always an openness to update theory should new evidence arise.

 

You may enjoy this video, he does a good job of making the point.  It's a great series, "The Atheist Experience" with new shows every couple weeks.

 

Yes, that was a very good video.  He was very logical in his responses which unfortunately is often lacking in religious arguments.  Thanks for sharing

 

The comment the theist makes at about 10 minutes in is the EXACT reason I created this thread.

 

By the way, WHAT was he saying in the last few seconds of the video? That was simply odd. He was so civilized up until that point.

 

He said, "How about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus". 

 Signature 

“During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act.”
—George Orwell

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

Aldebaran:
wildonrio:
PJ:
Aldebaran:
wildonrio:

I think I'm an agnostic atheist at this point, which is basically an atheist in embryo I bet.

I actually think you'll find that most Atheists are Agnostic Atheists.  It's a very scientific and reasonable approach to the question.   Scientific theories are the best descriptions we have of reality based on the evidence we have at the moment, but there is always an openness to update theory should new evidence arise.

 

You may enjoy this video, he does a good job of making the point.  It's a great series, "The Atheist Experience" with new shows every couple weeks.

 

Yes, that was a very good video.  He was very logical in his responses which unfortunately is often lacking in religious arguments.  Thanks for sharing

 

The comment the theist makes at about 10 minutes in is the EXACT reason I created this thread.

 

By the way, WHAT was he saying in the last few seconds of the video? That was simply odd. He was so civilized up until that point.

 

He said, "How about I come down there and punch your fat head in for Jesus". 

 

There's nothing like that true Christian spirit, is there?

 

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

PJ:
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly accept a person's opinion just because he's educated as if that means his word is an authority over others because of it.  I didn't dismiss his article because he was critical of Dawkins but simply found it unconvincing.  I don't just accept people's opinions as true because they have degrees.  Many people lack degrees but are still as knowledgeable as those with degrees.  Many people spend their lives learning but never getting degrees.

 

I happened to find the review quite compelling aside from Nagel's credentials.  I only mentioned that to indicate his expertise which does give him some credibility.  I guess your response reminded me of TBM's who only read a portion of something critical of the church and dismiss it as "anti-mormon" literature.

 

I only stopped reading the rest of the article as I didn't feel like wasting any more time on it.  It had nothing to do with being worried about something being "Anti" anything.

 

That may be true, but I've heard TBM's say the exact same thing.  Just sayin'.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 

 LOL.  That's why I put the winky in there.  

 

I think "closet theist" would be poisoning the well...  

 

Thanks for posting the entire review.  It was much more intesting than the selected bits.  I do think he's off base on the argument from design, but it does set out a non-theistic version of the argument that I think he articulates very well. 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 

 LOL.  That's why I put the winky in there.  

 

I think "closet theist" would be poisoning the well...  

 

Thanks for posting the entire review.  It was much more intesting than the selected bits.  I do think he's off base on the argument from design, but it does set out a non-theistic version of the argument that I think he articulates very well. 

Ah yes, poisoning the well...thanks for the correction.

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 

By the way.  It wasn't an inverted version of argument from authority.  This was just the feeling a got from reading his arguments.  I wouldn't dismiss a person's point of view even if he/she was a theist.  The idea of me doing that is kind of insulting.  I've been around educated people enough to know that education isn't necessarily a yardstick for truth or facts.  Sometimes education hinders people from seeing more.  That has been my experience.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

PJ:
wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 

By the way.  It wasn't an inverted version of argument from authority.  This was just the feeling a got from reading his arguments.  I wouldn't dismiss a person's point of view even if he/she was a theist.  The idea of me doing that is kind of insulting.  I've been around educated people enough to know that education isn't necessarily a yardstick for truth or facts.  Sometimes education hinders people from seeing more.  That has been my experience.

 

Actually, Brad corrected me there and said your comment was the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

wescape:
PJ:
wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

 

By the way.  It wasn't an inverted version of argument from authority.  This was just the feeling a got from reading his arguments.  I wouldn't dismiss a person's point of view even if he/she was a theist.  The idea of me doing that is kind of insulting.  I've been around educated people enough to know that education isn't necessarily a yardstick for truth or facts.  Sometimes education hinders people from seeing more.  That has been my experience.

 

Actually, Brad corrected me there and said your comment was the fallacy of poisoning the well.

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2008-10-15

This may or may not fit into the discussion, but I love this quote from Bill Maher about atheism.  And it expresses my feelings to the "T" (what does that mean anyway?).

 

When it comes to religion, we’re not two sides of the same coin. You don’t get to put your unreason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, and Thor, and the Kraken; with the stuff that is not evidence based. Stuff that religious people never change their mind about, no matter what happens.

That’s not Atheism. I’m open to anything for which there is evidence. Show me a god and I will believe in him.

If Jesus Christ comes down from the sky during the half time show of this Sunday’s Super Bowl and turns all the nachos into loaves and fishes, and well, I’ll think two things. First, ‘How dare he interrupt Madonna? She is going to be pissed.’ And two, ‘Oh, look at that. I was wrong, there he is. My bad, praise the Lord.’ But, that’s not going to happen."


 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-15

wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:
wescape:

Dawkins seems to be quite popular among postmormons and I often see him quoted or mentioned on this site.

 

Here are some excerpts from The Fear of Religion, an interesting review on The God Delusion by atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel.

 

 

 

After reading the first eight paragraphs I more or less thought of it as just a lot of dribble by a closet theist and couldn't be bothered reading the rest.  Dawkins' book The God Delusion is by no means perfect but I think it perfectly argues its point.

 

Interesting that you would so quickly dismiss a Harvard educated philosopher and NYU professor just because he is critical of Dawkins.

 

 wescape, I don't think the argument from authority carries much weight around here.  But I wouldn't characterize the review as "dribble from a closet theist" either.   Do you have a like to the entire review?  I think it would be interesting.  I think Nagel's defense of the design inference is off base, but one does not have to be a theist to agree with his position.

 

 

Hey Brad,

 

Actually, I see the argument from authority used quite often around here.    PJ dismissed Nagel as a "closet theist" which is sort of an inverted version of it...as if the possibility of him being a theist (which he does not claim, BTW) invalidates the content of his review.

 

I believe the following is a link to the full review, but for some reason it does not have any spacing:

 

http://www.tnr.com/article/the-fear-religion

 

Dawkins et al get appealed to all the time, but I guess that is different. Not

 

 Signature 
 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

If I had made the comment "Closet theist" with the intention to discredit the author then it could be argued that I was trying to poison the well.  Intent does play a role in interpreting if something is a logical fallacy or not.  You can argue about it rhetorically but when I wasn't dismissing him with the closet theist comment I wouldn't view that as a logical fallacy.  People reading the comment and assuming I'm dismissing him are being false in their assumptions.  They are in fact allowing the idea of dismissing into their own minds by their assumptions.  I was simply conveying a feeling nothing more.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

 Hmm.  Good question.  First, PJ I'm sorry I sounded judgmental toward you, as that was not my intent.   In my own experience, people use logical fallacies like ad hominem or well poisoning without malice all the time.  When I talk about logical fallacies, I'm judging the structure of an argument, not the nature of the person using the argument.  I did not mean to imply that you were being malicious or deceptive -- just that I thought you were using the form of a logical fallacy.

 

 

Only you can know your thought process.  It looked to me as if you were avoding having to deal with the substance of Nagle's argument by labeling him as a closet theist and, therefore, just another defender of the faith not to be taken seriously.  (I am exaggerating a little. )  That is, in practice, how the poisoning the well fallacy works:  you find a reason to discount the speaker for a reason unlreated to the merits of the argument.

 

It's too bad that the formatting is so bad in the entire review.  I think Nagle raises some good issues worth thinking about.  Ultimately, I don't agree with much of what he says.  But I think the issues he raises are good ones.

 

 

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

 Hmm.  Good question.  First, PJ I'm sorry I sounded judgmental toward you, as that was not my intent.   In my own experience, people use logical fallacies like ad hominem or well poisoning without malice all the time.  When I talk about logical fallacies, I'm judging the structure of an argument, not the nature of the person using the argument.  I did not mean to imply that you were being malicious or deceptive -- just that I thought you were using the form of a logical fallacy.

 

 

Only you can know your thought process.  It looked to me as if you were avoding having to deal with the substance of Nagle's argument by labeling him as a closet theist and, therefore, just another defender of the faith not to be taken seriously.  (I am exaggerating a little. )  That is, in practice, how the poisoning the well fallacy works:  you find a reason to discount the speaker for a reason unlreated to the merits of the argument.

 

It's too bad that the formatting is so bad in the entire review.  I think Nagle raises some good issues worth thinking about.  Ultimately, I don't agree with much of what he says.  But I think the issues he raises are good ones.

 

 

 

Thanks, Brad.  I didn't necessarily think malice was being used either and I think it was reasonable that we both perceived a fallacy taking place in the statement.  Your perception of my response as the appeal to authority fallacy sent me into the recesses of my mind to when I first learned about logical fallacies back during my early college years in a Philosophy of Ethics class.  That was over 10 years ago, so I was feeling a little rusty and figured I'd brush up.  I found a site that lays it out pretty in depth:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

According to the site,

 

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.

 

In light of this definition, I don't see how my response fits the fallacy because I never made any claims about Nagel's review being "true" but rather found it curious that someone of his intellectual caliber would be so quickly dismissed as a "closet theist" without even fully reading what he had to say on the matter.

 

Does that make sense or am I missing something?

 

 
Avatar
Administrator
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2007-05-08

wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

 Hmm.  Good question.  First, PJ I'm sorry I sounded judgmental toward you, as that was not my intent.   In my own experience, people use logical fallacies like ad hominem or well poisoning without malice all the time.  When I talk about logical fallacies, I'm judging the structure of an argument, not the nature of the person using the argument.  I did not mean to imply that you were being malicious or deceptive -- just that I thought you were using the form of a logical fallacy.

 

 

Only you can know your thought process.  It looked to me as if you were avoding having to deal with the substance of Nagle's argument by labeling him as a closet theist and, therefore, just another defender of the faith not to be taken seriously.  (I am exaggerating a little. )  That is, in practice, how the poisoning the well fallacy works:  you find a reason to discount the speaker for a reason unlreated to the merits of the argument.

 

It's too bad that the formatting is so bad in the entire review.  I think Nagle raises some good issues worth thinking about.  Ultimately, I don't agree with much of what he says.  But I think the issues he raises are good ones.

 

 

 

Thanks, Brad.  I didn't necessarily think malice was being used either and I think it was reasonable that we both perceived a fallacy taking place in the statement.  Your perception of my response as the appeal to authority fallacy sent me into the recesses of my mind to when I first learned about logical fallacies back during my early college years in a Philosophy of Ethics class.  That was over 10 years ago, so I was feeling a little rusty and figured I'd brush up.  I found a site that lays it out pretty in depth:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

According to the site,

 

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.

 

In light of this definition, I don't see how my response fits the fallacy because I never made any claims about Nagel's review being "true" but rather found it curious that someone of his intellectual caliber would be so quickly dismissed as a "closet theist" without even fully reading what he had to say on the matter.

 

Does that make sense or am I missing something?

 

 

 When I first read your comment, I thought your point was that PJ should accept what Nagel had to say because of Nagel's academic credentials.  That sounded to me like an appeal to authority based on credentials, because even someone with a degree from Harvard can express an idea that is sheer nonsense.  (I know this from bitter experience.  ) It really was the appeal to the credential that prompted my comment.

 

Just my opinion, but pointing out the credential really doesn't seem to add to the point you were making.  After all, couldn't a guy with Nagel's credentials be a closet theist?  Looking back at the exchange, maybe "hasty generalization" would be a better description of PJ's comment.  That would be the case regardless of Nagel's academic credentials, so referring them does kind of sound like an argument from authority.

 

Fun to think this stuff through.  I'm sure you could do the same with my ramblings.   

 Signature 

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away.


Phillip K. Dick

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2004-12-03

Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

 Hmm.  Good question.  First, PJ I'm sorry I sounded judgmental toward you, as that was not my intent.   In my own experience, people use logical fallacies like ad hominem or well poisoning without malice all the time.  When I talk about logical fallacies, I'm judging the structure of an argument, not the nature of the person using the argument.  I did not mean to imply that you were being malicious or deceptive -- just that I thought you were using the form of a logical fallacy.

 

 

Only you can know your thought process.  It looked to me as if you were avoding having to deal with the substance of Nagle's argument by labeling him as a closet theist and, therefore, just another defender of the faith not to be taken seriously.  (I am exaggerating a little. )  That is, in practice, how the poisoning the well fallacy works:  you find a reason to discount the speaker for a reason unlreated to the merits of the argument.

 

It's too bad that the formatting is so bad in the entire review.  I think Nagle raises some good issues worth thinking about.  Ultimately, I don't agree with much of what he says.  But I think the issues he raises are good ones.

 

 

 

Thanks, Brad.  I didn't necessarily think malice was being used either and I think it was reasonable that we both perceived a fallacy taking place in the statement.  Your perception of my response as the appeal to authority fallacy sent me into the recesses of my mind to when I first learned about logical fallacies back during my early college years in a Philosophy of Ethics class.  That was over 10 years ago, so I was feeling a little rusty and figured I'd brush up.  I found a site that lays it out pretty in depth:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

According to the site,

 

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.

 

In light of this definition, I don't see how my response fits the fallacy because I never made any claims about Nagel's review being "true" but rather found it curious that someone of his intellectual caliber would be so quickly dismissed as a "closet theist" without even fully reading what he had to say on the matter.

 

Does that make sense or am I missing something?

 

 

 When I first read your comment, I thought your point was that PJ should accept what Nagel had to say because of Nagel's academic credentials.  That sounded to me like an appeal to authority based on credentials, because even someone with a degree from Harvard can express an idea that is sheer nonsense.  (I know this from bitter experience.  ) It really was the appeal to the credential that prompted my comment.

 

Just my opinion, but pointing out the credential really doesn't seem to add to the point you were making.  After all, couldn't a guy with Nagel's credentials be a closet theist?  Looking back at the exchange, maybe "hasty generalization" would be a better description of PJ's comment.  That would be the case regardless of Nagel's academic credentials, so referring them does kind of sound like an argument from authority.

 

Fun to think this stuff through.  I'm sure you could do the same with my ramblings.   

 

I absolutely agree that a degree from Harvard is not necessarily synonymous with sound reasoning.  However, I think someone with such a degree is at least worth listening to all the way through and then thoughtfully considering (which you clearly did) before hastily generalizing into dismissive categories.  That was my point in referencing his credentials.  Unfortunately, I seem to observe far more dismissal of things in this arena, which is why I really appreciate your willingness to engage in genuine dialogue where you thoughtfully consider viewpoints different from your own and offer respectful feedback. 

 

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
Brad (ZeeZrom):
wescape:
PJ:

 

It may have appeared that way to Brad but that was not my intention.  As I said it was just a feeling nothing else.  There really was no malice in my intentions.  I wasn't attempting to poisoning the well.

 

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that a person's intent has no bearing on the commission of logical fallacies...is that true Brad?

 

 Hmm.  Good question.  First, PJ I'm sorry I sounded judgmental toward you, as that was not my intent.   In my own experience, people use logical fallacies like ad hominem or well poisoning without malice all the time.  When I talk about logical fallacies, I'm judging the structure of an argument, not the nature of the person using the argument.  I did not mean to imply that you were being malicious or deceptive -- just that I thought you were using the form of a logical fallacy.

 

 

Only you can know your thought process.  It looked to me as if you were avoding having to deal with the substance of Nagle's argument by labeling him as a closet theist and, therefore, just another defender of the faith not to be taken seriously.  (I am exaggerating a little. )  That is, in practice, how the poisoning the well fallacy works:  you find a reason to discount the speaker for a reason unlreated to the merits of the argument.

 

It's too bad that the formatting is so bad in the entire review.  I think Nagle raises some good issues worth thinking about.  Ultimately, I don't agree with much of what he says.  But I think the issues he raises are good ones.

 

 

 

Thanks, Brad.  I didn't necessarily think malice was being used either and I think it was reasonable that we both perceived a fallacy taking place in the statement.  Your perception of my response as the appeal to authority fallacy sent me into the recesses of my mind to when I first learned about logical fallacies back during my early college years in a Philosophy of Ethics class.  That was over 10 years ago, so I was feeling a little rusty and figured I'd brush up.  I found a site that lays it out pretty in depth:  http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html

 

According to the site,

 

An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

  1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  3. Therefore, C is true.

 

In light of this definition, I don't see how my response fits the fallacy because I never made any claims about Nagel's review being "true" but rather found it curious that someone of his intellectual caliber would be so quickly dismissed as a "closet theist" without even fully reading what he had to say on the matter.

 

Does that make sense or am I missing something?

 

 

 When I first read your comment, I thought your point was that PJ should accept what Nagel had to say because of Nagel's academic credentials.  That sounded to me like an appeal to authority based on credentials, because even someone with a degree from Harvard can express an idea that is sheer nonsense.  (I know this from bitter experience.  ) It really was the appeal to the credential that prompted my comment.

 

Just my opinion, but pointing out the credential really doesn't seem to add to the point you were making.  After all, couldn't a guy with Nagel's credentials be a closet theist?  Looking back at the exchange, maybe "hasty generalization" would be a better description of PJ's comment. That would be the case regardless of Nagel's academic credentials, so referring them does kind of sound like an argument from authority.

 

Fun to think this stuff through.  I'm sure you could do the same with my ramblings.   

 

It amazes me that I can't get through with what I meant?  My comment was not a "Hasty generalization" either.  LOL!

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2010-05-04

Just finished reading Penn Jillette's new book:  God, No!  Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

 

http://www.amazon.com/God-No-Already-Atheist-Magical/dp/145161036X/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

 

He makes a similar argument for the idea that you might be an atheist and not know it due to the prevailing attitude (largely inspired by preachers in the Bible Belt) that an atheist is someone who positively states that there is no god -- or cannot be a god. Personally, I have never met anyone who makes such a ridiculous claim.  Certainly, none of the "New Atheists" do.

 

It is understandable why believers want to pigeonhole those who lack a belief of God in this way.  The idea that God does not -- or cannot -- exist is not logically defensible.

 

Why let the unwashed masses set the agenda?  People try to define evolution as the theory that we descended from apes.  Do scientists say, "well, I guess we will have to come up with a new word.  The meaning of evolution has been hijaacked."

 

It is up to informed people, and especially those who self-identify as an "atheist," to educate people about the correct meaning of the term. 

 

 

 

 

 Signature 

http://www.Theofrak.com - because traditional religion is so frakked up

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2009-06-13

Panopticon:

Just finished reading Penn Jillette's new book:  God, No!  Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

 

http://www.amazon.com/God-No-Already-Atheist-Magical/dp/145161036X/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

He makes a similar argument for the idea that you might be an atheist and not know it due to the prevailing attitude (largely inspired by preachers in the Bible Belt) that an atheist is someone who positively states that there is no god -- or cannot be a god. Personally, I have never met anyone who makes such a ridiculous claim.  Certainly, none of the "New Atheists" do.

 

It is understandable why believers want to pigeonhole those who lack a belief of God in this way.  The idea that God does not -- or cannot -- exist is not logically defensible.

 

Why let the unwashed masses set the agenda?  People try to define evolution as the theory that we descended from apes.  Do scientists say, "well, I guess we will have to come up with a new word.  The meaning of evolution has been hijaacked."

 

It is up to informed people, and especially those who self-identify as an "atheist," to educate people about the correct meaning of the term. 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, many people do seem to think that an atheist is someone who absolutely declares that there's no god.  Not even Dawkins makes that statement.  It's amazing the nonsense ignorance produces.

 Signature 

If you could reason with religious people, there would be no religious people. -  Dr. Gregory House.


There’s a time for diplomacy, a time for plainness and then there’s a time to just let it rip.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 

The most rewarding thing in life is to live authentically.
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.


There’s nothing like looking through the door of reality and seeing what’s there. How can this not be more interesting than looking through the door of ignorance and seeing nothing?
- Peter Lindberg Jensen.

 
Avatar
Long Timer
RankRankRankRankRank
Joined  2011-11-25

Panopticon:

Just finished reading Penn Jillette's new book:  God, No!  Signs You May Already Be an Atheist and Other Magical Tales.

 

http://www.amazon.com/God-No-Already-Atheist-Magical/dp/145161036X/ref=tmm_hrd_title_0

 

He makes a similar argument for the idea that you might be an atheist and not know it due to the prevailing attitude (largely inspired by preachers in the Bible Belt) that an atheist is someone who positively states that there is no god -- or cannot be a god. Personally, I have never met anyone who makes such a ridiculous claim.  Certainly, none of the "New Atheists" do.

 

It is understandable why believers want to pigeonhole those who lack a belief of God in this way.  The idea that God does not -- or cannot -- exist is not logically defensible.

 

Why let the unwashed masses set the agenda?  People try to define evolution as the theory that we descended from apes.  Do scientists say, "well, I guess we will have to come up with a new word.  The meaning of evolution has been hijaacked."

 

It is up to informed people, and especially those who self-identify as an "atheist," to educate people about the correct meaning of the term. 

 

 

 

 

Atheist:  belief that God does not exist. 

It seems like some are changing Atheism to Agnosticism because they see how ridiulous it is to conclude about something with so little information.

 

Like your analogy of reducing evolution as defined as descending from apes...

Arguing against the biblical definition of God makes no sense, because even some of the people who twisted biblical wording for political power, knew their definition was wrong.  It's like arguing why blood letting is wrong... pointless.

Why not discuss more healthy ways of defining health... & God.

 

God is attraction, which may be too abstract to argue about.

Still, it's more honest, given the limited awareness we have.

And it's more healthy by encouraging inward reflection on one's true "god" of worship, obsession, or ultimate concern.

 
Jr. Member
RankRank
Joined  2011-03-15

God? TO live is to belive there is a possibility that something like us might derive of chance. to an ant we are god so god can come by chance, but Im a ateist in regards to homo homo sapiens our god is either mad or insaen
 
Avatar
Member
RankRankRank
Joined  2011-05-13

If labels matter at all, then I guess I could categorize myself as a 'strong atheist'.  I really don't care how politically incorrect or arrogant that makes me appear. I'm utterly convinced that there is no god in the literal sense, no creator, no savior or punisher, or whateverer.  I have little need to shout this to the world, but I won't go out of my way much to put a nice face on it, either.  I'm reasonably certain, based on anecdotal and scientific evidence (or rather lack or inconsistency thereof) that there is no supernatural creator savior being, that I will not be punished in some way for saying such.  I find no good reason to "play it safe", play the agnostic, and leave any room for the possibility out of some need to appear sensible or whatever.  I can't call it a leep of faith, either. The evidence is too overwhelming.  I find no need or use to believe in a god, and I dismiss apologetic and non-literal/metaphoric god arguments. Meaning making is not the same as theism, no matter how you slice it. 

 

There is no god.  There never was. There never will be. There I said it.  No lightning strike. No sudden stroke or heart attack.  My kids are asleep upstairs safe. 

 

I will not necessarily reject anyone's claim that my lack of belief is merely my belief. In that sense I guess I must remain agnostic - I simply cannot claim that my experience is universal truth. That's not only arrogant, but stupid. But I will declare without hesitation that there is no god, because it is clear to me that the evidence is not in favor of a such a being.  

 Signature 

I
Choose to live and to
Lie,
Kill and give and to
Die,
Learn and love and to
Do
What it takes to step through.

Tool: Fourty-Six & 2

 
Avatar
Jr. Member
RankRank
Joined  2012-02-09

I am positively an atheist.  Not because I don't accept the remote possibility that such an entity might exist that has been called "God" by others.  But rather, I can not imagine a force, being or entity that I would find worthy, fitting, or proper to apply the label "God."  If such a thing exists, it is simply a fact of the universe.  I believe the word "God" is meaningless, except in the sense (as one other post mentions) that it implies one's "ultimate concern."  If Jesus exists, for example, it is my choice whether or not to make him my ultimate concern.  And I sincerely doubt he would be.  The closest thing that I can find to be worthy of the label "God" is the Universe itself, but even that falls short.
 Signature 

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. —Thomas Jefferson

 
2 of 2
2
     
 


Our next project
will be announced soon.

Tax exempt status.

Logged in: 0
Not logged in: 69
Logged in anonymous: 0
(Joined in last 24 hours)
 

Total members: 9605
TBM Tinder Date
by Dark Chocolate
resignation screwups in SLC
by John E. Baker, III [was GraciesDaddy]
Inner compass
by Heretic
I just spent a week with my TBM extended family...
by John E. Baker, III [was GraciesDaddy]