Dawkins vs. Haggard

[Tony]

Wrong as usual.

Thanks for the complement.

It's based on my assumption that they are a lot smarter than you think they are.

You claimed they were stupid. I know americans are smarter than to think like this:

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it.

Maybe you're dumb enough to change your world view because of the attitude of one British scientist, but the vast majority of Americans are not.

 

[EBU]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

So, some atheist watches Dawkins and observes that he is a supercilious twit. And that causes said atheist to decide to become a christian? Or some other religion? (Perhaps Muslim?) Sounds implausible to me.

I don't know, don't people decide on religions beliefs (or non-beliefs) based on criteria other than the personal characteristics of one adherent of that belief? The argument was made, in another thread, that if one christian turns out to be, well, un-christian, that doesn't generally turn people away from christianity.

 

[RandFan]

Ding! Category error! "women and minorities" & "atheists"

We learn by making mistakes. If I've made an error then I want to correct it and not make it again. I can't do that if you won't tell me what the mistake was. Why can't you just explain what it is you mean?

A category mistake, or category error is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. For example, the statement "the business of the book sleeps eternally" is syntactically correct, but it is meaningless or nonsense or, at the very most, metaphorical, because it incorrectly ascribes the property, sleeps eternally, to business, and incorrectly ascribes the property, business, to the token, the book.

The term "category mistake" was introduced by Gilbert Ryle in his book The Concept of Mind to remove what he argued to be a confusion over the nature of mind born from Cartesian metaphysics. It was alleged to be a mistake to treat the mind as an object made of an immaterial substance because predications of substance are not meaningful for a collection of dispositions and capacities.

What property am I ascribing to "women" & "minorities" and "atheists" that they could not possilby have that property?

Women, minorities and atheists can all be discriminated against. Right?

 

[bjb]

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Just my 2 cts.

Your arguement is that Americans will become Chistians simply because Dawkins is pushy. The absolute of God and Jesus' existance is a British guy who happens to be annoying? This is not a logical or persuasive arguement. It would not be rational for someone to become a Christian simply by watching this video.

Similarly, I can look at Ted Haggard and see what a jerk he is. At most, I can conclude that evangelicals are full of crap but it does not prove that God does not exist. Just because false religions exist doesn't mean God does not exist. This time, turning to atheism because a religious guy is annoying is illogical. However, turning away from evangelical church to a different, less extreme religion would be a reasonable reaction to the video.

 

[delphi_ote]

What property am I ascribing to "women" & "minorities" and "atheists" that they could not possilby have that property?

Women, minorities and atheists can all be discriminated against. Right?

But you did talk about things that fall into categories. And hammy knows a logical fallacy with the word "category" in the name.

 

[Jekyll]

How so?

Bjb says it well.

Your arguement is that Americans will become Chistians simply because Dawkins is pushy. The absolute of God and Jesus' existance is a British guy who happens to be annoying? This is not a logical or persuasive arguement. It would not be rational for someone to become a Christian simply by watching this video.

Similarly, I can look at Ted Haggard and see what a jerk he is. At most, I can conclude that evangelicals are full of crap but it does not prove that God does not exist. Just because false religions exist doesn't mean God does not exist. This time, turning to atheism because a religious guy is annoying is illogical. However, turning away from evangelical church to a different, less extreme religion would be a reasonable reaction to the video.

And ironically, by making this mistake you're doing exactly what you accused RandFan of and confusing 'homo-sap inter-personal behaviors' with 'the search for, or denial of, the existence of god'. You seem to think that some how because people reject Richard Dawkins that they are going to be magically driven to theism.

 

[hammegk]

First, if we could get a wonder-mod to decide this thread belongs in R&P ...

LISA SIMPSOME: WAKE UP!

What property am I ascribing to "women" & "minorities" and "atheists" that they could not possilby have that property?

It's not a question of possibly; it's context dependent.

Women and minorities don't get a choice in those attributes they present to the world; atheists do.

I suppose we could discuss the nutcakes who do decide on a gender-change on a case by case basis.

Women, minorities and atheists can all be discriminated against.

Evangelicals, Xians, etc, too. So what?

Your arguement is that Americans will become Chistians simply because Dawkins is pushy.

I mentioned pushed towards religion rather than away from it, so, no. That's not even a good guess.

However, turning away from evangelical church to a different, less extreme religion would be a reasonable reaction to the video.

Much better, but I suggest the effect could also go from less to more extreme.

But you did talk about things that fall into categories. And hammy knows a logical fallacy with the word "category" in the name.

Thanks for the complement.

No compliment, but you are obtuse (obtuse, complement, haha, joke) enough to think so in truth.

You claimed they were stupid. I know americans are smarter than to think like this:

Where did I make the claim americans are stupid?

Maybe you're dumb enough to change your world view because of the attitude of one British scientist,

You are as dumb as I think you are if you buy that.

but the vast majority of Americans are not.

Er, yeah, that's part of my point.

Bjb says it well.

No he didn't, as previously discussed.

And ironically, by making this mistake you're doing exactly what you accused RandFan of and confusing 'homo-sap inter-personal behaviors' with 'the search for, or denial of, the existence of god'.

How so?

You seem to think that some how because people reject Richard Dawkins that they are going to be magically driven to theism.

No, I don't; guess again.

 

[AmateurScientist]

First, if we could get a wonder-mod to decide this thread belongs in R&P ...

LISA SIMPSOME: WAKE UP!

Ha ha. Good one. You know, this could just as easily go to Literature and Arts. After all, Richard Dawkins did write a book...

AS

 

[hammegk]

It was just for you ...


On-topic; I wonder if delphi_joke, etal have finally figured out the category error involves the epistemological vs the ontological.

 

[RandFan]

Women and minorities don't get a choice in those attributes they present to the world; atheists do.

Ok, so? Atheists as a group are discriminated against because of their lack of belief. If attitudes about women and minorities can be changed can they not also be changed for atheists.

You just aren't making sense.

 

[RandFan]

But you did talk about things that fall into categories. And hammy knows a logical fallacy with the word "category" in the name.

I think you've nailed it.

 

[RandFan]

On-topic; I wonder if delphi_joke, etal have finally figured out the category error involves the epistemological vs the ontological.

If you could explain the property that is being ascribed to a thing that could not possibly have that property. That might help.

 

[delphi_ote]

On-topic; I wonder if delphi_joke, etal have finally figured out the category error involves the epistemological vs the ontological.

Pssst. Big words used in an irrelevant context won't do much to convince people you know what the hell you're talking about. The's no "category error" in RandFan's post. All of those groups experience discrimination. Because you can think of a way which makes them not the same does not make it a "category error." Classifying animals by color, I could say taxonomy is a "category error."

You seem to be bringing the issue of choice into this, which is odd. If groups who make a choice cannot be discriminated against, then the Jews were not discriminated against in Germany.

 

[Tony]

No compliment, but you are obtuse (obtuse, complement, haha, joke) enough to think so in truth.

Hehe. It's funny that you don't get it.

Where did I make the claim americans are stupid?

Right here:

Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Such a course of events, which you claimed would happen, is predicated on USAians being stupid, therefore, you claimed they were stupid.

You are as dumb as I think you are if you buy that.

Backpedal away.

Er, yeah, that's part of my point.

More backpedaling. You clearly said they were:

Dawkins'[one scientist] attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it.

 

[hammegk]

On-topic; I wonder if delphi_joke, etal have finally figured out the category error involves the epistemological vs the ontological.

Well, I have at least a partial answer. But you too, Randfan?

Hehe. It's funny that you don't get it.

Yup, I missed the subtlety your reply contained. What was it I missed?


hammegk:
Where did I make the claim americans are stupid?

Right here:

Quote hammegk:
Dawkins' attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it. Got many more pushy, supercilious Brits (or does Kenya claim him?) to offer?

Such a course of events, which you claimed would happen, is predicated on USAians being stupid, therefore, you claimed they were stupid.

Sorry. That's just your stupid mis-interpretation of my words.

Backpedal away.

More backpedaling. You clearly said they were:

Quote hammegk:
Dawkins'[one scientist] attitude, words, and demeanor will chase more USAians into religion rather than away from it.

What that is is more of your mis-understanding.


BTW: "Discrimination" is not the topic I'm discussing, either.

 

[RandFan]

Well, I have at least a partial answer. But you too, Randfan?

Sadly I don't have any. I've tried to answer your question but I can't do that if you won't explain to me the error that I'm making.

 

[RandFan]

And I would say you commit the ultimate category error by likening homo-sap inter-personal behaviors to the search for, or denial of, the existence of god.

I've gone back through the thread to try and figure out your obscure posts but I just don't understand. What are you talking about?

 

[hammegk]

I don't understand what you don't understand about "the epistemological vs the ontological" as it applies to your analogy.

 

[RandFan]

I don't understand what you don't understand about "the epistemological vs the ontological" as it applies to your analogy.

I just don't understand your point. Is it so obscure that it can't be explained?

e‧pis‧te‧mol‧o‧gy
–noun

a branch of philosophy that investigates the origin, nature, methods, and limits of human knowledge.

on‧tol‧o‧gy 
–noun

1.the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.
2.(loosely) metaphysics.

Could you explain to me what you mean?

 

[delphi_ote]

BTW: "Discrimination" is not the topic I'm discussing, either.

That's clearly what RandFan was discussing. You know "ignorance and pre-held assumptions" and all that. Are we supposed to believe you replied about his post mentioning a "category error" to introduce a new topic?

"HA! Logical fallacy! I sleep on a down comforter every night with my black lab named Sparky!"