tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post9091775005771721245..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: Villifying GroupsAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-77654602183188571202011-03-20T05:37:19.140-06:002011-03-20T05:37:19.140-06:00You may try to claim it is a "hasty generaliz...You may try to claim it is a "hasty generalization", but it is a fact as well: The funniest thing I can share with you is that every single atheist I've ever run across, once I've spent some time deconstructing their tenuous and tangled arguments, winds up with only the "there is no God because I say so and I'm smart so I'm right". Basically it is true no one can prove there is a God, but it is equally true no one can prove their isn't. <br /><br />The last guy (Dan Barker) who tried this tactic in my actual presence was (and I believe still is) taking part in a series of debates with Dinesh D'Souza titled "Christianity and Western Civilization: Is Religion the Problem?" I attended the debate at UCSD earlier this month. Dinesh gave a stellar set of arguments against the proposition. Dan Barker countered with his "There is no God because I say so and I'm smart so you'd better believe me." argument, completely ignoring the proposition that was being debated.<br /><br />Of course he did plug his books and told us how compassionate he is - he remarked that all the money he still makes from all the Christian songs he wrote before he made a U-turn and went atheist goes straight to ensuring unborn children are murdered in the womb.<br /><br />Gee, I wonder, would it be fair to note that before he became an atheist his life was dedicated to making lives better and now that he's an atheist his life seems devoted to murdering the unborn to a great extent, so they never get a life at all?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-47362502637967562752009-03-28T22:54:00.000-06:002009-03-28T22:54:00.000-06:00You wrote:"This is in spite of the fact that the f...You wrote:<BR/>"This is in spite of the fact that the former used only words and the latter use bombs, legislation, and other instruments of violence."<BR/><BR/>Bombs and legislation are both instruments of violence? Seems like the case for one is much stronger than the case for the other. I assume that the generalization around legislation includes all legislation, rendering all codification of the law, regardless of its intent, content or impacted behaviors, violent.<BR/>Secondly, you wrote:<BR/>"This is because all religious beliefs are false." Perhaps we are separated by the common language of English, but it seems to me that the religious belief eschewed by Jesus that one should "do unto others as one would have them do unto you" might just be a religious proposition that would bring meaning to a life. By religious proposition I mean that the follower of the proposition does so soley because he or she believes that the proposition came straight from God.<BR/>Finally, you wrote:<BR/>"Since “one or more gods exist” is false, no religious proposition can be true."<BR/>I would definitely be interested in how you arrived at that conclusion, since it seems to be a matter of intense debate since humans were capable of debating. Do you have insight outside of the human experience?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-52434937916589701382007-08-03T09:47:00.000-06:002007-08-03T09:47:00.000-06:00I objected to these hasty generalizations and fals...<I>I objected to these hasty generalizations and false attributions and argued for remaining focused on the specific transgressions and the specific guilty parties.</I><BR/><BR/>I have yet to visit a blog devoted to an aspect of atheism where religious believers are consistently allowed this standard of evidence. <BR/><BR/>How about Christopher Hitchens' advocacy for David Irving well after it was clear that he was a Holocaust denier? That was entirely disreputable. Yet, it's been my experience, that even when confronted with that and scads of other of his rather slimy sayings and doings that his crown is as secure on his head as when the first printing emerged in all its bile. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to see widespread application of his own standard applied to him:<BR/><BR/>"Then also there is the general problem of credulity, of people being willing - once a reputation has been established - to judge people's actions by that reputation instead of the reputation by that action." Christopher Hitchens, Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 16, Number 4.<BR/><BR/>The catalog of Hitchens' actions are forgotten in the quite revealing adulation of him for his ability to hate on religious believers like few others can. Considering who else he has hate on over the past quarter of a century he's got quite a bit of practice. <BR/><BR/>I have yet to find a blog atheist who is at all bothered by any aspect of Hitchens' long history. <BR/><BR/>Dawkins' lapses are, granted, less astonishing than Hitchens but The God Delusion is a pretty badly researched, reasoned or honest book. Yet whenever someone points out a shortcoming in HH Richard Dawkins, even with full explanation and citations it is dismissed. Perhaps that's the reason that his critics might give up holding him to the standard you advocate on atheist blogs.olvlzlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15329638018157415801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-70004020555318933302007-08-03T09:38:00.000-06:002007-08-03T09:38:00.000-06:00"When others note the hasty generalizations and th..."When others note the hasty generalizations and the false attributions that come from them, I would suspect to find more than a few people say, “Here is somebody who is not interested in making sure that his claims are well founded and true, so I need not listen to what he has to say.”"<BR/><BR/>Alonzo,<BR/>I believe I have caught you in an inconsistency. That is you have committed hasty generalizations and false attributions, but I am still interested in what you say because your transgressions are rare.<BR/><BR/>In the comments section to your post of June 17th.<BR/>http://atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2007/06/democracy-in-middle-east.html<BR/><BR/>I asked:<BR/>"Alonzo, <BR/>I would like to ask exactly who do you mean by secular liberals? Are there any actual names that can serve as representatives?"<BR/><BR/>You replied:<BR/>"(2) Relativism and post-modernism were by far more strongly held by members of the political left, than the political right. Indeed, they were practically the defining characteristic of the intellectual left throughout the 1990s."<BR/><BR/>In response I did acknowledge that relativism and post-modernism was and is ONE trend among ONE section of the political and intellectual left. However, it is far from a "defining characteristic", which is where you committed your hasty generalization and false attribution.<BR/><BR/>I will give you a few counter examples that you can investigate yourself.<BR/><BR/>Item 1: Noam Chomsky has unequivocally reputiated relativism and post-modernism, as has the editor of "Z" magazine Michael Albert. You can find evidence of this in their writings at the ZNet web site.<BR/><BR/>Item 2: On my book shelf is a book titled "In Defense of History", edited by John Belllamy-Foster and Ellen Meiskins-Wood published by the independent socialist/Marxist Monthly Review Press. The book is dedicated to a critique of post-modernism. In fact you would be hard pressed to find anything promoting post-modernism coming from Monthly Review magazine or press, a venerable institution of the American socialist left.<BR/><BR/>Rather than link these, one can simply google of ZNet and Monthly Review.Sheldonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03743116454273042629noreply@blogger.com