|
|
|
|
Hook
Skeptic Friend
USA
79 Posts |
 Posted - 04/17/2002 : 11:53:59
|
I was having another useless debate with a Fundie on another board, when he posted some links that would allegedly show historical evidence "proving" the claims of "true" christianity (which ever that one is. Me, I already have my Camp Lake-O-Fire T-shirt!
Anyway, I went to see and I stumbled into this page:
http://www.xenos.org/essays/presup.htm
This isn't one of the pages he sent me too, but it is a remarkble display of using twisted "logic" to bamboozle! It shows a very poor understanding of science (probably intentional) and one of the worst examples of logic since Monty Pyton and the Holy Grail.
quote:
And how do you know she's a witch?
uh... uh... Because she looks like a witch!
It would be funny if it wasn't for the fact that some people who think like this have power and influence in government.
Alas.
(P-)>
"I don't care whether my neighbor believes in zero gods or 20 gods, I care whether my neighbor believes in democracy."
--Bill Moyers
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2002 : 13:06:28 [Permalink]
|
Actually the essay was rather logical and I had to agree almost up to his conclusions.
He had me until this:
quote:
If we, including our minds, are part of this cause and effect chain, all our thoughts and perceptions must be preconditioned by chemistry and physics. Why, then, would anyone with this world view think his own thought processes (themselves conditioned) could tell him anything about reality? Clearly, if we think our minds are not completely conditioned by natural law, we must presuppose the possibility that something non-material exists. We must suppose the supernatural exists.
I have no idea what is meant by that.
The other ideas about free and morality I will I have to concede.
Claiming that ones own mind is not bound by the laws of nature and that one could make decisions free of cause and effect rules would be illogical. I never claimed to have a free will. I also don't believe in moral abosultes. No contradictions here.
|
 |
|
|
Physiofly
Skeptic Friend
USA
90 Posts |
Posted - 04/17/2002 : 16:42:10 [Permalink]
|
It read to me like the old "God must exist to overcome the problem of entropy/chaos/Cthulu <head nod to Xev>" gambit. Same bad logic, different facade.
"Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a
deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions." - Niccolo Machiavelli
|
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2002 : 02:31:09 [Permalink]
|
Sorry, but the beginning of this little piece of dribble had straw man written all over it. Then, the white stones welcoming you to Canada clinched it. This is nothing more than the old tornado, junkyard and 747, or the watch maker arguments revamped.
Plus, I'll agree with Lars. The part about the naturalistic thought process being invalid or some such, just doesn't follow.
Then, this - quote:
"Is it morally wrong to sexually abuse 3 year olds?"
- Did nothing but piss me off. As if anyone that doesn't recognize a supreme being is morally deficient. I will assert that an atheist is probably more moral and ethical than a Christian. To make them do the right thing, a Christian requires the threat of eternal punishment, and the reward of eternal worship in the light of god, which is rarely practiced with delight in this world. The atheist, on the other hand, does the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. Plus, I am still wanting to know if atheists, agnostics, Unitarians, and all other non-theists combined make up even 1% of any prison population, anywhere!
I think that I will bookmark this site, and go back and have a chat with this Dennis McCallum fellow when I have some more time, but it will probably be futile. It takes too long to change the way a person views the world.
"The Constitution ..., is a marvelous document for self-government by Christian people. But the minute you turn the document into the hands of non-Christian and atheistic people they can use it to destroy the very foundation of our society." P. Robertson |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2002 : 10:20:29 [Permalink]
|
*Yawn*
Truly pathetic. This whole essay relies on disingenuousluy redefining oft-used terms in such a way that the author's conclusions are logically necessary; e.g. the word "rational" describes a process or, in mathematics, a particular number. It doesn't make any sense to say "rational universe." The universe certainly cannot have rational thought and it is not able to be expressed as a quotient of integers so neither of those definitions apply. The author uses the word to mean 'an inherent quality of the universe that humans can discern' so he can equivocate and say that we must presuppose a creator in order to explain how our rational thought aligns with a rational universe. I've seen much better shitty logic than this.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/18/2002 : 11:24:33 [Permalink]
|
I have noticed in my dealings with Creationists that the story usually goes like this….
Suppose two men are riding in a railway coach and glancing from the window at one of the stops, they see numerous white stones scattered about on a hillside near the train in a pattern resembling these letters: THE CANADIAN RAILWAYS WELCOMES YOU TO CANADA. One man observes that it took a lot of work to arrange the stones in that pattern, the other agrees. The second man points out that it was even more work for them to have made the hill to hold all of these stone words up. The first man disagrees and states that the hill was probably just there. The second says, "look the letters are things aren't they? Somebody had to make them. The words are things too, and some person had to make them also. Don't you agree? So it only logically follows that the hill is also a thing, a great big thing. Since people make things and the hill is a thing then a person, a great big person, must have constructed the hill. To think otherwise would be to deny reality!"
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
