Find fields & stores near you!
Find fields and stores
Zipcode
PbNation News
PbNation News
Community Focus
Community Focus

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 08-10-2009, 09:35 PM #22
ISmokeIce
Postmodern Sophist
 
ISmokeIce's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Florida
For example, you say that do not support the death penalty for anyone.

I say that you're immoral because you believe that severe punishment is not allowed for anyone. If you were to punish Hitler or Osama bin Laden, you would not severely punish them for the crimes they committed. So you, basically, side with them. So you support Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

My logic is faulty because you didn't say anything of the sort, but I added claims to what you said.
__________________
"No passion is stronger in the breast of man than the desire to make others believe as he believes...It is not the love of truth, but desire to prevail that sets quarter against quarter and makes parish desire the downfall of parish. Each seeks peace of mind and subserviency rather than the triumph of truth and exaltation of virtue-- But these moralities belong, and should be left to the historian, since they are as dull as ditch water" - Orlando: A Biography
ISmokeIce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sponsored Links Remove Advertisement
Advertisement
Old 08-10-2009, 09:40 PM #23
xtoughguyx
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
The entire book is one gigantic circle-jerking strawman argument, which Dawkins whole-heartedly admits when he says he has absolutely no concept of the arguments he is arguing against(he has stated this many times and for some reason dismissed it as a non-problem) but presents them anyways in his book. Presenting the argument of your opposition before refuting it is practically the definition of strawmanning. I don't know how you can call his arguments reasonable and valid when you attack the type of arguments he's making on a daily basis here on PbN.
he doesn't misrepresent there arguments or ideas, he may admit to having no concept of the arguments is he arguing against, but he presents the opposing sides ideas without twisting then and making them false.

did you mean

"Presenting a false argument of your opposition and then refuting it is practically the definition of strawmanning."
__________________
OC straightedge **** you.
xtoughguyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2009, 09:51 PM #24
PAINTBALL ZILLA
Canobie Paintball Factory
 
PAINTBALL ZILLA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Boston
Annual Supporting Member
PAINTBALL ZILLA helped look for balloons
Quote:
Originally Posted by ISmokeIce View Post
For example, you say that do not support the death penalty for anyone.

I say that you're immoral because you believe that severe punishment is not allowed for anyone. If you were to punish Hitler or Osama bin Laden, you would not severely punish them for the crimes they committed. So you, basically, side with them. So you support Hitler and Osama bin Laden.

My logic is faulty because you didn't say anything of the sort, but I added claims to what you said.
So basically putting words in someone's mouth, then calling them out on the words you put in their mouth.
I get that concept, though I don't think Dawkins is doing this in TGD. He accurately represents the opposing view. He states he doesn't see the appeal in the opposing side, but the other viewpoint isn't mangled.
__________________
East Coast Army
Bleeding Green

Canobie Paintball | PB Wizard | XS Energy | NHIP
Zilla Photography
PAINTBALL ZILLA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2009, 11:52 PM #25
warbeak2099
That is my foot!
 
warbeak2099's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Wouldn't u like to know!
 has been a member for 10 years
I see nothing about Dawkins' arguments as strawmanning. He simply presents the counter argument in a demeaning light instead of being objective about it. He has a lot of good points about what's wrong with religion, he's just very condescending about the way he delivers them.
__________________
US Navy Baller
UL'd 07 PMR F/S, PM me if interested!
#12 Italian Baller
“The real test of a man is not how well he plays the role he has invented for himself, but how well he plays the role that destiny assigned to him.”
-Václav Havel
warbeak2099 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 08:49 AM #26
hsilman
Disgustipated
 
hsilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Big Apple
Quote:
Originally Posted by warbeak2099 View Post
I see nothing about Dawkins' arguments as strawmanning. He simply presents the counter argument in a demeaning light instead of being objective about it. He has a lot of good points about what's wrong with religion, he's just very condescending about the way he delivers them.
first of all, to repsond to everyone, yes I meant to say he doesn't accurately or objectively present the opposing opinion. I realized when I was thinking of what Is aid later when Iw as away from my computer and was like "oooo, woopsy". It was one of those things where it sounds right in your head when you read it, even if the words aren't there correctly.

He definitely has a lot of good points about what is wrong with religion, I have never said that. However, his arguments about God are based on two things:

1) he doesn't believe God can possibly exist, so his portrayal of any argument for the existence of God is both comical and absurdist. He never just presents the argument and attacks its basis, instead he presents the argument and attacks what HE thinks is the basis, which is always faulty logic because to him there is no good logic for the agrument.

2) He believes there is such thing as metaphysical necessity. He believes you need "a good reason to believe in God". The problem is, we rarely have "good reasons" to believe in this or that metaphysical principle. I haven't been rigorous enough in my current investigation into that statement to say for sure that we *never* have any "real reason"(or what Dawkins would consider a good enough reason) to believe in any metaphysical principle at all, but everything I've read so far seems to be pointing in that direction. He is simply arguing against the effects of believing in God(and rightly so, belief in a diety has often caused great harm to the world) not against the actual existence of God.

not to mention, he doesn't take on a single intelligent or modern argument in his book or during his "debate circuit". He picks easy targets, and while they definitely do respresent the majority of theists(unfortunately), I have yet to see him debate someone who doesn't use a classical argument for God's existence.

However, one thing I do remember is his interview with Ben Stein in "Expelled". I hated that movie and didn't even think the interview proved anything, but in it, Dawkin's said that "yes, it's possible that aliens came down and essentially played the role of God, but those aliens must have been creatures that were created through evolution."

he basically said "there is no God, but its possible there are aliens who are God."

The only reason for Dawkins importance or relevance is that a bunch of morons think there's anything to refute. He believes evolution alone explains everything. He may even be right about that. But that really has absolutely nothing to do with God, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, anything. It doesn't change a damn thing.

Ironically, in this situation I am most reminded of what Derr said that si quoted in Crede's sig:

Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.

Whether or not you believe in god is patently irrelevant to whether or not he exists. The only difference between what is and what isn't, is exactly that. This world is logically consistent with or without God, including at least the Biblical God, and possibly the god of other religions, and definitely a universalist "creator force" God. There are logically consistent arguments to be made for the existence of God. They may or may not be compelling, but that depends on your worldview. beyond logical consistency, we have no objective basis for accepting or rejecting most any solely metaphysical proposition.

To calrify, I'm not talking about things like "does anything exist or is it all in our minds", because there are "tests" we can conduct which can show that, while the appearance of the outside world may be different to each of us, something is definitely there. actually, let's not even talk about this.

essentially, dawkins is ducking. I'm far from the most brilliant person in the world, but based on his books and debates/interviews/speaking that he's done, I am fairly confident that while I could never get him to agree I might be right because he's a douchebag, I could certainly convince the viewing public that both sides have good arguments and its up to them to decide for themselves.
__________________
This is necessary. Life feeds on life
feeds on life
feeds on life
hsilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2009, 04:23 PM #27
xtoughguyx
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by hsilman View Post
first of all, to repsond to everyone, yes I meant to say he doesn't accurately or objectively present the opposing opinion. I realized when I was thinking of what Is aid later when Iw as away from my computer and was like "oooo, woopsy". It was one of those things where it sounds right in your head when you read it, even if the words aren't there correctly.

He definitely has a lot of good points about what is wrong with religion, I have never said that. However, his arguments about God are based on two things:

1) he doesn't believe God can possibly exist, so his portrayal of any argument for the existence of God is both comical and absurdist. He never just presents the argument and attacks its basis, instead he presents the argument and attacks what HE thinks is the basis, which is always faulty logic because to him there is no good logic for the agrument.

2) He believes there is such thing as metaphysical necessity. He believes you need "a good reason to believe in God". The problem is, we rarely have "good reasons" to believe in this or that metaphysical principle. I haven't been rigorous enough in my current investigation into that statement to say for sure that we *never* have any "real reason"(or what Dawkins would consider a good enough reason) to believe in any metaphysical principle at all, but everything I've read so far seems to be pointing in that direction. He is simply arguing against the effects of believing in God(and rightly so, belief in a diety has often caused great harm to the world) not against the actual existence of God.

not to mention, he doesn't take on a single intelligent or modern argument in his book or during his "debate circuit". He picks easy targets, and while they definitely do respresent the majority of theists(unfortunately), I have yet to see him debate someone who doesn't use a classical argument for God's existence.

However, one thing I do remember is his interview with Ben Stein in "Expelled". I hated that movie and didn't even think the interview proved anything, but in it, Dawkin's said that "yes, it's possible that aliens came down and essentially played the role of God, but those aliens must have been creatures that were created through evolution."

he basically said "there is no God, but its possible there are aliens who are God."

The only reason for Dawkins importance or relevance is that a bunch of morons think there's anything to refute. He believes evolution alone explains everything. He may even be right about that. But that really has absolutely nothing to do with God, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, anything. It doesn't change a damn thing.

Ironically, in this situation I am most reminded of what Derr said that si quoted in Crede's sig:

Whether or not you believe the universe is here for a reason is patently irrelevant to whether or not the universe cares.

Whether or not you believe in god is patently irrelevant to whether or not he exists. The only difference between what is and what isn't, is exactly that. This world is logically consistent with or without God, including at least the Biblical God, and possibly the god of other religions, and definitely a universalist "creator force" God. There are logically consistent arguments to be made for the existence of God. They may or may not be compelling, but that depends on your worldview. beyond logical consistency, we have no objective basis for accepting or rejecting most any solely metaphysical proposition.

To calrify, I'm not talking about things like "does anything exist or is it all in our minds", because there are "tests" we can conduct which can show that, while the appearance of the outside world may be different to each of us, something is definitely there. actually, let's not even talk about this.

essentially, dawkins is ducking. I'm far from the most brilliant person in the world, but based on his books and debates/interviews/speaking that he's done, I am fairly confident that while I could never get him to agree I might be right because he's a douchebag, I could certainly convince the viewing public that both sides have good arguments and its up to them to decide for themselves.
I think you have either not read the book or are so juiced up on him being a douche that you cannot get past that.

yes he comes off as arrogant, but he is quite angry with religion so it makes sense as to why he comes off that way.

Even though he may belittle religion, and think there argument are laughable he puts religious peoples arguments exactly as they have been said to him and other athiests over the years. he doesn't straw man at all. This is because as he has stated he has no respect for religion.

he doesn't dodge or duck from any argument.
__________________
OC straightedge **** you.
xtoughguyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
Forum Jump