This is www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551558295's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551558295's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=551558295
Recent Activity
Having thought about it for a bit, I'm not exactly comfortable with saying that we should believe something in order to fight off criticism of dogmatists, even as a reason among others. Different wording, different presentation, sure, but as a reason for what sort of thing we should believe? It's a terrible reason because by the same token, we should stop promoting ourselves, because that too is making people believe we are fundamentalist. There are other reasons as well (such as alienating those who 'believe in belief', and feel that an atheist worldview shouldn't worry about what others think), but that doesn't make it any less of a bad argument. A better formulation would be 'Believers would say that we're being just as dogmatic as they are, and they'd be right'
Toggle Commented Oct 2, 2009 on Atheism and Uncertainty at Greta Christina's Blog
1 reply
My main interest would be what the differences between the post abuse and currently abused groups were. Were there any? Because the effects on the currently abused would either indicate the empowerment of them to change their situation, or that that this brief DBT works (or both), whereas post could easily have been the passage of time. Did it say how long ago the post group were abused?
What would happen? Babies would be sold in supermarkets, der. Which is a good thing, since the ones I've been eating off the blackmarket tend to be a bit gammy, not to mention pricey.
1 reply
Another example would be to say Christian's believe in the bible, ergo, they must follow everything that is in the bible, ergo, if your child disrespects you, you are honour bound it kill them. After all, it says it three times in both the new and old testament.
1 reply
IMHO you missed a massive shut up that's why argument, which is 'You can't understand or criticise my holy text/my beliefs because you haven't read my holy text/tried my beliefs'. This is annoying on multiple levels, it's a courter's reply fallacy, it's a argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy and it's often a moving the goalpost fallacy as quite often you've just proven/disproven something. And at the same time it's a rather intellectually bankrupt way of trying to get you to either spend a long time researching their beliefs/holy text, (because they secretly believe that upon experiencing the full extent of their belief system you'll be converted), or getting you to give up and go away. Furthermore, it depicts them as ignorant as obviously they don't understand the argument well enough to substantiate or summarise them for you directly. Note that this does not mean that everybody who passes you a link/pamphlet/handout/extract/study/video/mp3 is intellectually bankrupt, as more often than not, they're time saving devices as the person believes that the texts can better explain the point than they can. It's when the other person tries to extend this to an absurd level, perhaps even adding in conditionals which give the believer the time to formate a reponse (such as saying you have to go X celebration/meeting/event) that this becomes a shut up that's why argument. And finally, as if this argument could be even more flawed, if you extend this argument to it's logical limits, it becomes absurd, because it means that in order to refute Nazism you need to learn German and read Mein Kampf and watch Hitler's rally's. In order to declare yourself straight, you must first try to have sex with your own gender, and vice versa. And it means that before they can reject your atheism/critical thinking they must first read The God Delusion/Listen to all of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe.
1 reply