tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post3407542157507950754..comments2009-03-17T20:19:47.144+10:00Theo Clarkhttps://profiles.google.com/108645831840656817487noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-49419887679656006782009-03-17T20:19:00.000+10:002009-03-17T20:19:00.000+10:00This is just getting embarrassing now. I'm going to do you a favour.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-67707158934085612542009-03-17T19:10:00.000+10:002009-03-17T19:10:00.000+10:00<B>you said : </B><I>"I hope you have a browse around this site, and maybe subscribe to the podcast. There's plenty to learn. A good place to start would be The Burden of Proof." </I><BR/><BR/><B>i say : </B>thanks, but what is there to know in the Braille of nothingness but empty words of presumptions and infinite possibilities of foolishness.<BR/><BR/>Statements that conclude from open-ended propositions are just questions arising from other questions. But atheism is as unique as the people who propose it, because it feeds on the ignorance or limitations of its believers. <BR/><BR/>If all blind people are as stubborn as the atheists, they would all insist the moon does not exist.<BR/><BR/><BR/>dragon slayer<BR/>http://dsfalar.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-73058824549785319242009-03-17T18:16:00.000+10:002009-03-17T18:16:00.000+10:00Hi Dragon,<BR/><BR/>I really can't see any point in continuing this thread. I have more pressing concerns (there's this bit of lint I just can't get out of my belly button).<BR/><BR/>I hope you have a browse around this site, and maybe subscribe to the podcast. There's plenty to learn. A good place to start would be <A HREF="http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-burden-of-proof.html" REL="nofollow">The Burden of Proof</A>.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-8606318668342912292009-03-17T11:58:00.000+10:002009-03-17T11:58:00.000+10:00<I><B>"I can't prove they don't exist, but there are an infinite things I can't prove do not exist, so why favour one over the others?"</B></I><BR/><BR/>so now you admit you can't even prove the non-existence of fairies?<BR/><BR/>I can restate your statement above as: <B>I don't know anything about fairies, but am also totally ignorant of so many other things, so why not just go ahead on being stupid.</B><BR/><BR/>In other words, you admit to be ignorant of the world around you and on this basis you deny God.<BR/><BR/>How wise of you:=) <BR/><BR/>Thus, based on your ludicrous statement, I may now safely assume that atheism is the belief based on human ignorance because it makes assumptions on the basis of "not-knowing". <BR/><BR/>dragon slayer<BR/>http://dsfalar.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-30491078124002714112009-03-16T19:58:00.000+10:002009-03-16T19:58:00.000+10:00Welcome back Harry Potter, sorry, I mean Dragon Slayer. Please show me where I have ever stated I'm an atheist? I am merely responding to the comments.<BR/><BR/>The "not collecting stamps" point is completely different to the burden of proof argument you are now trying to make. How you think they are related is beyond me. <BR/><BR/>Here's the standard and legitimate response to your point about the argument for god's non-existence because we can't detect her. It is the same as the argument for the non-existence of fairies etc, that I already said. I can't prove they don't exist, but there are an infinite things I can't prove do not exist, so why favour one over the others? (There might be an answer to this, but you are yet to provide it.)<BR/><BR/>Welcome back Dirk Adurka, and LOL.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-13941280591484188812009-03-16T16:46:00.000+10:002009-03-16T16:46:00.000+10:00<I>There are a lot of wierdos here in the Philippines and well...Is Dragon Slayer one of 'em.</I><BR/><BR/>Sounds like ad hominem from brutes who use blasphemies to prove that God does not exist. <BR/><BR/>Dragon SlayerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-41228705833590802692009-03-16T16:37:00.000+10:002009-03-16T16:37:00.000+10:00<I>By your reckoning, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.</I> <BR/><BR/>Well, same as your principle that concludes in God's non-existence on the basis of your inability to see Him.<BR/><BR/>dragon slayerAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-37606574243164479622009-03-16T14:36:00.000+10:002009-03-16T14:36:00.000+10:00The nice thing a fundamentalist theist can usually fall back on is the supreme schadenfreudenistic thought that his or her atheist interlocutor is destined to burn in hell for all eternity. This can compensate for temporary and transient difficulties in argument.Dirk Adurkanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-49906574614896546722009-03-16T14:21:00.000+10:002009-03-16T14:21:00.000+10:00@ Mike (#2). Thanks for the comment.<BR/><BR/>Yes, people can at once be atheists and humanists, and/or atheists and skeptics, or skeptics and theists, etc.<BR/><BR/>I agree that because you are an atheist, it doesn't mean you're antagonistic, but the prefix <I>a</I> is a "privation" or "negation" (according to Fowler's). So arguably the word is antagonistic (if negation and deprivation are antagonistic).<BR/><BR/>I also never said I was antagonised by atheism, it's just that humanism is <I>for</I> something. (Note, I never said I was a humanist either, I'm a strict egoist.) I find it difficult to see where you got that idea? I was merely discussing the word atheism.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-84894042555490137762009-03-16T13:38:00.000+10:002009-03-16T13:38:00.000+10:00"However, the term Atheist is, by definition, a necessarily antagonistic one. That's why I tend to identify with the goals of humanists more - in that they are "preaching" a positive philosophy."<BR/><BR/>Most humanists call themselves atheists, too. I am an atheist first, and a humanist second. It is not an antagonistic term anymore than Christian is, because the term Christian means that Man is inherently sinful through no fault of our own. The atheist doesn't accept that, and is antagonized by the Christian.<BR/><BR/>If you wish to be "antagonized" by atheism, I consider that projection.Mike Haubrich, FCDhttp://tuibguy.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-9751349659052144992009-03-15T19:37:00.000+10:002009-03-15T19:37:00.000+10:00Hi Mike. I try to avoid discussion of religion, except in terms of arguments that involve errors in reasoning and those in which one can bring science to the table. This thread seems to be conforming to my first reason to discuss religion.<BR/><BR/>I can't talk to your experiences, but the question of whether or not there is a god is a genuinely interesting one to most people. It makes sense that people discuss it with differing degrees of "care factor". And in a world where there are many cases of fervent religious belief that have real effects, and where the views of religious leaders on moral issues are taken with greater warrant than arguably they deserve, there would be a "backlash" of outspoken atheists - especially when their morality is invariably questioned. <BR/><BR/>However, the term <B>A</B>theist is, by definition, a necessarily antagonistic one. That's why I tend to identify with the goals of humanists more - in that they are "preaching" a positive philosophy. <BR/><BR/>As to your claim that atheists believe in nothingness and is a "religious belief", this is patently absurd. Religions have an defined way of approaching spirituality, they have symbols and routines, practices, some kind of hierarchy, etc. Atheism certainly doesn't have this. To the extent atheists organise themselves, it is more like a political / social organisaiton, seeking to marginalise the influence of religion, than a religious organisation "worshiping nothingness".<BR/><BR/>Further, "worshiping nothingness" is certainly not how I've heard any prominent atheists put their views (such as Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens). That is a blatant <A HREF="http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2005/01/examples-of-false-positioning.html" REL="nofollow">Strawman</A>. Dawkins, for example, "worships" the mysteries of the universe and natural world, which he articulates in great detail in <A HREF="http://www.csicop.org/si/9903/dawkins.html" REL="nofollow">Unweaving the Rainbow</A>.<BR/><BR/>Their response to your point, if I may be so bold as to predict it, would be we're all A-Fairiests, or A-Zeusists, A-celestial-teapotists, etc. We just don't need to bother talking about it because 99.9% of people don't believe in fairies, Zeus or Teapots orbiting the Sun (separate to the Earth). Whereas most people are theists of one kind or another. Thus the need for the label. As with the other examples of non-belief I just cited, atheism is not that they believe in "nothing". They don't believe in a specific "universal intelligence". There is a clear epistemological and ontological difference.<BR/><BR/>Lastly, you say agnosticism is "not believing". No, that's atheism. <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism" REL="nofollow">Agnosticism</A> is saying "I don't know."Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-24575662867820501092009-03-15T14:57:00.000+10:002009-03-15T14:57:00.000+10:00While not a believer or atheist, I have to agree that most of the devout and outspoken atheists I know are a lot more ferverent and evangelical about it than just someone who "doesn't collect stamps" (and more so than most religious people I know). They very frequently have atheist anti-religion reading materials to hand out, from little business card sized talking points up to handbooks, or frequently deluge you with emails of atheistic arguments. So their behavior is clearly religious in an evangelical and devout sense, to a degree one expects from hari krishnas, mormons, or jehovah's witnesses.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, believing in nothingness is not the same as not believing in something. The first is atheism, the second is agnosticism. One is religious, the other is merely either disinterested, or more scientifically, accepting that the question being not falsifiable is not a topic for rational argument.Mike Lorreyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03094443839137951482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-19245290668473129052009-03-14T22:29:00.000+10:002009-03-14T22:29:00.000+10:00For anyone's interest - as I said in this episode, this is not the first ever podcast skeptics' circle. As far as I know the first (and only other?) was at The Inoculated Mind: <A HREF="http://www.inoculatedmind.com/2006/10/who-you-gonna-call-skeptics-circle-45/" REL="nofollow">Who you gonna call? Skeptics' Circle 45</A><BR/><BR/>Have we ever had a video / youtube skeptics' circle? Just throwing that out there...Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-61427866292397349422009-03-14T11:18:00.000+10:002009-03-14T11:18:00.000+10:00Yeah - that was one of the most bizarre comments I've read for a while. I suspected I was dealing with a <A HREF="http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2006/07/examples-of-wtf-fallacy.html" REL="nofollow">WTFer</A> and going to his site, I confirmed my suspicions.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-34608960255205575462009-03-13T21:20:00.000+10:002009-03-13T21:20:00.000+10:00Wow, he really thinks he's talking with a deified "virgin"? Creepy...Danny Boy, FCDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05188779170739251410noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-42992661948636392152009-03-13T18:57:00.000+10:002009-03-13T18:57:00.000+10:00Dragon Slayer AKA d.s. falar (Dominic Sanchez Falar) is a guy who thinks "the Virgin Mother" talked to him.<BR/><BR/>Oh he loves to call skeptics "fools" and "stupid"...Maybe because he can't convince them of worshipping Mary and joining his cult. <BR/><BR/>There are a lot of wierdos here in the Philippines and well...Is Dragon Slayer one of 'em.<BR/><BR/>By the way, nice blog.John the Atheisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10969065277187656170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-40132595463674591912009-03-13T14:50:00.000+10:002009-03-13T14:50:00.000+10:00Anon / "Dragon Slayer" (lol). This is the kind of comment we like here. Enlightening, well thought out, rational and evidence based.<BR/><BR/>Oh, hang on a minute – no it isn’t.<BR/><BR/>Are there any specific examples of "worshiping nothing" you could point us to? <BR/><BR/>By your reckoning, "not collecting stamps" is a hobby.Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-63665039120088273142009-03-13T11:42:00.000+10:002009-03-13T11:42:00.000+10:00Atheism is just the religion of Nothing where members faithfully worship nothingness. This is the most ironic of all beliefs and inherently the most stupid! <BR/><BR/>d.s. falar Dragon Slayer<BR/>http://dsfalar.wordpress.com/Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-58310856777165172352009-03-13T07:06:00.000+10:002009-03-13T07:06:00.000+10:00Hey Gene.<BR/><BR/>A couple of points. It's technically only an ad hominem fallacy when it is used as the basis for dismissing an argument. E.g. "Michael Moore is wrong <I>because</I> he <A HREF="http://www.skepticsfieldguide.net/2006/01/michael-moore-denies-he-has.html" REL="nofollow">is a fat and ugly moron</A>."<BR/><BR/>Whereas saying "Michael Moore is wrong because he Stacks the Deck, <I>and</I> it so happens he is also a fat and ugly moron." is not fallacious (it is, in fact, a fact...). Throwing in the insult is unlikely to be a helpful tactic, but if it's not directly related to the argument, it's not a fallacy. I talk about this in the podcast on ad hominem.<BR/><BR/>The second point is you have made the assumption that knowing about fallacies implies some kind of ethical responsibility to not employ them? This is a completely separate issue. <BR/><BR/>In many of our podcasts we freely admit to blatant hypocrisy... as we do in the <A HREF="http://www.fallacyfiles.org/archive032006.html#03012006" REL="nofollow">introduction to our book</A> (the paper back edition). My rule of thumb is don't use fallacies when the truth of a matter is likely to be important. But, if it's arguing with you mates over something pointless at the pub, then the only consideration is, do you still want to keep these mates...Theohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07342708791160461777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9617943.post-72933898574688892602009-03-13T05:56:00.000+10:002009-03-13T05:56:00.000+10:00It's amazing -- you guys re supposed to be attacking these logical fallacies, but every time you post these distorted pictures it's actually an ad hominem attack.Gene Callahanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10065877215969589482noreply@blogger.com