What have we been talking about?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by filtherton
Logic and reason can only do so much, why would that make us stupid?
My claim is that there are plenty of people who seem to apply reason asymmetrically to other people's beliefs and not their own, and that from my experience a sizable portion of the people who claim to reject theism on the grounds that it is "unreasonable" fit this category.
|
It shouldn't make us stupid but that's what it sounds like you're saying. Let me clarify this point.
It sounds like you're arguing that because logic can't construct an answer to all our questions, it makes sense to forego their use whenever it suits us. I think this is stupid. At the very least, whenever contradictions can be logically built from our presuppositions, we should change our presuppositions.
I agree that all manner of people believe all manner of things for no good reason and this also applies to atheism. That doesn't mean that it's not a reasonable position and I would argue that it is. I would also argue that theism is an unreasonable position or, at least, that no good argument has ever been set forth. Surprisingly, this actually strays from the topic of conversation where I entered but not necessarily from the topic of the thread...
Quote:
|
Again, I am not talking about you; your specific justifications for your atheism aren't what I'm interested in. My initial response to Mr. Rotten was concerned with debunking the idea that atheism is somehow the only logical position one can take with respect to the existence of god. That's the discussion I was having and that's the discussion you joined. If you want to talk about something else, lay out your position and if it interests me we can go from there.
|
Actually, looking back on the thread, I was responding to roachboy and you were the one to rebut my response to him. It just so happens to be the same topic and that's whether atheism is the only reasonable stance and I assert that it is.
Quote:
|
It's more of a red herring, my mistake. I'm always surprised how much google knows.
|
I don't think it's a red herring, either. If I had claimed oppression and abandoned my original claim of the unreasonable nature of theism, then I would agree that it was a red herring. Besides, that term is more properly used to describe narration rather than argument...
Quote:
No, I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked. I am familiar with the Courtesan's Reply, which was written by someone other than Dawkins. I've already stated that I'm not that familiar with Dawkins' work directly, and that any claims I make about them aren't necessarily accurate. Does any of this ring a bell? Do you understand to whom you are speaking? 
|
You say "I wasn't attacking a straw man, I was answering a question you asked" as if they were mutually exclusive acts. You were answering my question with a strawman argument. That you already mentioned that you don't actually know Dawkins' arguments doesn't change the fact that you were attacking strawmen, it's merely an admission of such.
I wasn't suggesting that you spend the kind of effort necessary to, say, read his book. You could just spend a couple of minutes watching a video of him. You have strong enough opinions of him that you must have
some interest in his work...
Quote:
|
It's as much a statement of reality as "It's 6:30 p.m." What's your point?
|
My point is that, unlike your example here, it's not a statement of reality. I thought there was an understanding between us in this regard. It's not actually that great an example 'cause much of the reason why it doesn't describe reality is that it's a poorly defined term but the point is that it's not falsifiable and thus not a statement of reality, by my use of the term.
The current time is falsifiable while an opinion on a movie is not. Consequently, the current time is a statement of reality while an opinion on a movie is not...