Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Johnny Rotten
That's a lot of guesswork you packed in there. Also, evolutionary psychology? No, he's an evolutionary biologist, and his evolution-based arguments take up about a page in a half in the entire book.
|
Well, like I said, I don't really care all that much. I'd rather read about things I find interesting, and to tell you the truth, convoluted rationalizations for atheism aren't all that interesting. Neither are the bulk of evolutionary psychology or evolutionary biology.
Quote:
|
But if you're more comfortable with setting fire to straw men, don't be surprised when someone torpedoes one of your arguments, as I have several times in this thread, using arguments he brought up in the book. Which ones? It doesn't matter, because according to you, the guy's probably a fucking douchebag anyway.
|
What exactly were my straw men?
You didn't even know what I was talking about, and then when I tried to talk about it more you threw your virtual hands in the air and said "This is too difficult, I'm going to take my superior commitment to reason (which apparently doesn't actually extend to conversation) and go. Just read Dawkins." Why should I read it? You read it, if you understood what you read correctly and what you read proves that I'm wrong, by all means, convince me that I'm wrong. I would love to find out that I'm wrong, then I could stop getting in these stupid arguments with people who make broad statements about the nature of logic, yet can't even be bothered to define what exactly logic is beyond silly claims that essentially boil down to "logical positions are based on assumptions that I agree with and illogical positions are based on assumptions that I don't agree with".
All you did was make a claim or two, and then when I responded, you couldn't be bothered to actually address what I said or attempt to clarify what you said. You may be right, but I have no way of knowing because you can't seem to clearly communicate what you're talking about or even read the words I wrote in the order I wrote them so as to not misunderstand them.
And c'mon, the ability to poorly paraphrase ideas you read in a book in a context where they aren't even relevant isn't the same as "torpedoing". I mean, you seem to have the Dawkins tone down, but the ability to come across as dismissive is a poor substitute for the ability to express your ideas clearly.
Shit, even Ustwo thinks Dawkins is a douchebag, and ustwo loves being dismissive and sardonic. It's not like the perception of Dawkins as being an asshole is something I just made up.