An unusual view of the neo-atheists - Page 9

IronUnkind · #81 11-02-2007, 05:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Or maybe he just wants to pick things to criticize so that he can look like a good and tolerant moderate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or maybe being a bumptious a**hole is a genuinely censurable offense.

IronUnkind · #82 11-02-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Duke -
Harris and Dawkins - and I - are as close to certain as is reasonably possible

[/ QUOTE ]

One of these skeptics is not like the others...

PairTheBoard · #83 11-02-2007, 06:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

I suspect you would have some difficulties with a logic test.

You'd actually have to believe the opposite of what I've posted to draw the inferences you do.

But feel free to make up whatever you want about people and then draw conclusions based on that. Its fun to watch.

[/ QUOTE ]

You display a common phenonmenon with many people.

[ QUOTE ]
kurto -
I don't find it surprising that you have no evidence for your insight. I would expect you to be the type to use your feelings as objective proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #84 11-02-2007, 06:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

MaxWeiss · #85 11-02-2007, 06:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God. You have that belief just as surely as you have the belief that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow at all from his post. All he claimed was that reason and evidence should be used. Further, he never claimed that god cannot or does not exist, but that there was no evidence of his existence and (now I'm throwing in my belief) that his existence is on the same order of magnitude of probability as His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

tame_deuces · #86 11-02-2007, 06:56 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The only possible intellectual problem I see with strong atheism is that it makes an absolute statement.

But to see that as an intellectual problem you have to accept that god's existence is unprovable - but if you do that you will indirectly have to accept that any belief that describes god has zero chance of being logically correct, regardless if god actually exists.

Either that or you have say directly that strong atheists are wrong, and then you just lumped yourself into the same intellectual problem about absolute statements.

MaxWeiss · #87 11-02-2007, 06:57 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not--you only think you are. And this is exactly the problem--even smart, logical people (like you) make such egregious errors of logic and leaps and bounds away from reason, while still thinking its completely rational. If instead you drew a boundary between your logic and your beliefs and claimed faith or other personal reasons, that would be fine, but you truly believe in the logical steadfastness of your insanely weak argument. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to fly. You seem like a good and decent person and I like your other posts, so I'm sorry if it's insulting, but it's just not going to fly when you talk about logic.

PairTheBoard · #88 11-02-2007, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Regardless of how you pose yourself the truth of the matter is that you really BELIEVE that there is not and cannot be anything like a God. You have that belief just as surely as you have the belief that there is no Flying Spagetti Monster

[/ QUOTE ]

This does not follow at all from his post. All he claimed was that reason and evidence should be used. Further, he never claimed that god cannot or does not exist, but that there was no evidence of his existence and (now I'm throwing in my belief) that his existence is on the same order of magnitude of probability as His Holiness the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[/ QUOTE ]

He said that the possibility of a divine mystery of faith was ridiculous. The only way you can proclaim certainty that such a role by God in faith is ridiculous is to hold the belief that such a God is ridiculous. You have the positive belief that such a God does not exist. When you admit that to you God is comparable to the FSM you are admitting your are a hard atheist. You are deluding yourself if you think you are kidding anybody about your not being a hard atheist wrt the FSM.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #89 11-02-2007, 07:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Well, if strong atheism is an 'intellectual problem' then so is theism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Strong atheism has a logically self contradictory type of problem peculiar to itself. This is something well recognized by most of the self described weak atheists who post here. This is why my charge that the neoatheism being proclaimed by the pop shock authors is really strong atheism hiding under the cover of weak atheism should be viewed as a potent challenge to it.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

The only possible intellectual problem I see with strong atheism is that it makes an absolute statement.

But to see that as an intellectual problem you have to accept that god's existence is unprovable - but if you do that you will indirectly have to accept that any belief that describes god has zero chance of being logically correct, regardless if god actually exists.

Either that or you have say directly that strong atheists are wrong, and then you just lumped yourself into the same intellectual problem about absolute statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. The theist does not have to prove God exists. The theist can rely on faith. The strong atheist has to either prove god does not exist - which he can't do - or admit that his position requires his own kind of faith. But atheistic faith is self contradictory.

PairTheBoard

PairTheBoard · #90 11-02-2007, 07:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not guessing at what you or the neoatheist shock authors believe. I'm drawing logical inferences from yours and their statements.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you're not--you only think you are. And this is exactly the problem--even smart, logical people (like you) make such egregious errors of logic and leaps and bounds away from reason, while still thinking its completely rational. If instead you drew a boundary between your logic and your beliefs and claimed faith or other personal reasons, that would be fine, but you truly believe in the logical steadfastness of your insanely weak argument. I'm sorry, but that's just not going to fly. You seem like a good and decent person and I like your other posts, so I'm sorry if it's insulting, but it's just not going to fly when you talk about logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

All I see you doing is speaking with a rhetorical voice of authority. That's not an argument.

PairTheBoard