Religion

Major Nikon

(36,904 posts)

28. Presenting an argument isn't the same as arguing something

Thu Jan 3, 2019, 02:21 AM

Jan 2019

One is sometimes described as providing a sermon and the other involves providing substantive response to criticism. It's not hard to figure out which way he goes. In a way it's almost understandable. Those who are indoctrinated into religion learn from the very beginning there's no room for critical thinking. The first thing that's not up for debate is the existence of the sky daddy. The next thing that's not up for debate is the sky daddy's word, which is always conveniently given by proxy.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

72 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Sam Harris and the Myth of Perfectly Rational Thought [View all] guillaumeb Dec 2018 OP

I freely admit that my faith is unprovable. guillaumeb Dec 2018 #1

Not all republicans are racist. Eko Dec 2018 #2

Are you certain of this? guillaumeb Dec 2018 #3

Some might be stamp collectors also. Eko Dec 2018 #5

Mao tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, the current leaders of the Chinese Government, guillaumeb Jan 2019 #10

Terrorist. Eko Jan 2019 #11

Nonsense. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #12

I just gave you the definition. Eko Jan 2019 #13

You gave me a defintion that suited your purpose. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #14

Why did you leave out the first 3 sentences from your link ? Eko Jan 2019 #15

I provided a definition. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #16

Because he never argues in good faith. trotsky Jan 2019 #24

Presenting an argument isn't the same as arguing something Major Nikon Jan 2019 #28

So religious terrorism is mentioned Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #34

And in #10, I gave examples of non-theistic mass murderers. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #35

Here, I address just one claim Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #62

Arguably? guillaumeb Jan 2019 #65

They would be if all still issued similar threats today Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #68

No. Those terrorists are long dead. MineralMan Jan 2019 #70

1) Threats, 2) as well as acts, are terrorist. Bretton Garcia Jan 2019 #72

How do you know they are atheist? Eko Jan 2019 #36

OK. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #38

That doesn't show Stalin was an atheist. Eko Jan 2019 #39

Previously done. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #40

Previously done where? Eko Jan 2019 #41

DU. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #42

There is the whole wide internet out there for you to use. Eko Jan 2019 #43

Not interested in this diversion. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #44

You made the claim that they were. Eko Jan 2019 #45

Here: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #48

Once again you leave things out. Eko Jan 2019 #49

So he eased up. That proves nothing about his position. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #50

Not helping your case. Eko Jan 2019 #51

You are failing in your diversion: guillaumeb Jan 2019 #52

Yes, that clearly shows he was an atheist. Eko Jan 2019 #53

The ever moving goal posts. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #54

Then obviously he didn't believe in atheism lol. Eko Jan 2019 #55

Nice one!! guillaumeb Jan 2019 #56

To be consistent. Eko Jan 2019 #57

Stalin himself was inconsistent on the matter. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #58

He was a brutal monster. Eko Jan 2019 #59

He may have been both, at different times. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #60

He may have been a lot of things. Eko Jan 2019 #61

You made the claim they were Major Nikon Jan 2019 #47

Stalin biographer, Edvard Radzinsky says he wasn't an atheist Major Nikon Jan 2019 #46

That is flawed Dorian Gray Jan 2019 #30

It was a jab. I did not mean it to be logical at all. Eko Jan 2019 #37

So your follow up to obvious strawman rhetoric is adding your own favorite strawman rhetoric Major Nikon Jan 2019 #8

It's best when the strawman argument Voltaire2 Dec 2018 #4

It's a yet another sign of their desperation... NeoGreen Dec 2018 #6

It doesn't get much better from there Major Nikon Jan 2019 #9

I have never met an atheist who believed he or she was perfectly rational. MineralMan Jan 2019 #7

Totally. None of us who aspire to rational thought, including atheists, believe we are infallible. erronis Jan 2019 #26

A podcast of the debate between Sam Harris and Ezra Klein. Jim__ Jan 2019 #17

Please summarize it for me. guillaumeb Jan 2019 #18

It's based on Harris's podcast with Charles Murray and Vox's criticism of it. Jim__ Jan 2019 #19

Thank you. eom guillaumeb Jan 2019 #20

I'm not sure how you scored it Major Nikon Jan 2019 #21

They're talking about Harris's interview of Murray and Vox's criticisms of that interview. Jim__ Jan 2019 #22

I read the entire transcript Major Nikon Jan 2019 #23

I listened to the entire podcast. I didn't think it needed to be mentioned. Jim__ Jan 2019 #25

You aren't really identifying points of contradiction, at least ones debatable Major Nikon Jan 2019 #27

Rather than do this back-and-forth, I'm going to post a link to the article ... Jim__ Jan 2019 #29

The article is worth reading but I think you left out the most significant parts Major Nikon Jan 2019 #31

No, the title does not accuse Harris of peddling in junk science. Jim__ Jan 2019 #32

Harris didn't see it that way Major Nikon Jan 2019 #33

No, there's no contradiction. Jim__ Jan 2019 #63

I don't think semantics counts for much here Major Nikon Jan 2019 #64

No, you're misstating the issue. Jim__ Jan 2019 #66

From your own reference... Major Nikon Jan 2019 #67

OK, from my own reference. Jim__ Jan 2019 #69

The point is essentially 'where's the beef'? Major Nikon Jan 2019 #71