The No argument argument.

[Outrider]

I should have realised that evolution would ensure that eventually nutjobbery would develop an immunity to irony...

O.

Supercilious, cheap, shot.

One good turn deserves another. Or, because you're such an Old Testament fan, an eye for an eye...

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

One good turn deserves another. Or, because you're such an Old Testament fan, an eye for an eye...

O.

Is that your idea of an insult?  Or have you never read on here of my dismissal of the OT?  The latter, I guess, because you seem uninformed in most things.

I am tired of repeating, to the uninformed and hard of understanding:  Jesus said:  "You have heard it said, in times of old, an eye for an eye...But I say unto you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also...etc."

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except that in the main those 'atheist objections to Dawkins' are typically about his manner and his politics, not his dismissal of the notion of gods as unevidenced assertion which needn't be accepted.

Slimily put however I think it's generally accepted that Dawkins is deficient in philosophical argument against God.

I don't think people really give a shit that he has turned into atheism's equivalent of Alf Garnett and he doesn't register on any political radar although we must never forget that he is ''landed''.

Mind you I think he provided a Darwinian context for Thatcher, another pseudo philosophy for her like those of Friedman and Joseph.

[jeremyp]

I don't think so.

Of course we would. If I fire an arrow from A to B, it gets to B. If Achilles has a race with a tortoise, Achilles will overtake the tortoise. Zeno's arguments are obviously false because the real World does not behave in the way that they predict it should.

Look at this video

http://amiquote.tumblr.com/post/4463599197/richard-feynman-on-how-we-would-look-for-a-new-law

Zeno's arguments disagree with experiment. Therefore, we know they are wrong before we even start looking for the flaw in the maths.

Actually, it's both. Conceptually it fails because of the maths, practically it fails because there's a lower limit of distance beyond which the idea of distance breaks down (the Planck length, from memory?)

Zeno's paradoxes fail whether the Universe is continuous or not. Before QM came along physicists were not agonising about why we could move from one place to another. Why not? Because the idea that a continuum is infinitely divisible was well understood and the maths actually refutes Zeno's argument.

[Ricky Spanish]

I don't think so. Quantum entanglement is 'obviously false' until you look at the data and find that it's actually happening. It might be easier to make the observations of an arrow than of quantum entanglement, but our senses are fallible and our internal model of reality contains assumptions and short-cuts. We might be motivated to examine the claim because it seems counter-intuitive, but that counter-intuitiveness doesn't mean that it's definitively wrong.

Zeno's "paradoxes" are just prime examples of philosophical bullshit.

A running man wouldn't wait at the last point a tortoise was at when he started running after it. He would catch up to it, kick it into the ditch and carry on to the pub.

Like the concept of a "God", "completed infinity"/"transfinite infinity" is just made up/imaginary bullshit.

Actually, it's both. Conceptually it fails because of the maths, practically it fails because there's a lower limit of distance beyond which the idea of distance breaks down (the Planck length, from memory?)

O.

More likely to be because the 'con'cept is full of shite!!

[Outrider]

Is that your idea of an insult?

No, it was another example of the irony of you accusing other people of your own failings - in this instance, suggesting I'd made a supercilious comment when I responded to your realisation you didn't have a point so instead you'd take a cheap shot and pretend like you'd scored a point.

Or have you never read on here of my dismissal of the OT?

Yes, I have, that's what made it ironic - something it appears you haven't studied yet. Or do you dismiss that with the magic spell 'MIDRASH', as well?

I am tired of repeating, to the uninformed and hard of understanding:  Jesus said:  "You have heard it said, in times of old, an eye for an eye...But I say unto you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also...etc."

And I keep pointing out:
a) Other passages of the New Testament say pretty much exactly the opposite, that Jesus has come to reinforce the Old Testament nonsense
b) Quoting scripture at me makes as much difference as me quoting the Silmarillion at you because I think it's a (poor) work of fiction.

O.

[Outrider]

Slimily put however I think it's generally accepted that Dawkins is deficient in philosophical argument against God.

Nice little 'ad hom' there; stay classy. I don't see that Professor Dawkins' fundamental philosophical argument against God has been shown as deficient at all: primarily he says that the case for God hasn't been made, and he's right.

His case for why religion is a bad thing needs some work, perhaps.

I don't think people really give a shit that he has turned into atheism's equivalent of Alf Garnett and he doesn't register on any political radar although we must never forget that he is ''landed''.

And yet he's the one that people keep crying about. It makes sense, of course, because he's the worst thing atheism has to offer, whereas we just have anti-abortion shooters, terrorist suicide bombers, institutional misogyny, homophobia and racism to throw back.

Mind you I think he provided a Darwinian context for Thatcher, another pseudo philosophy for her like those of Friedman and Joseph.

Yes, because what Professor Dawkins is famous for is advocating social Darwinism... oh, wait, no, that was one of the famous Catholics. Ratzinger? No, wait... Hitler, that was it.

O.

[Outrider]

Of course we would. If I fire an arrow from A to B, it gets to B. If Achilles has a race with a tortoise, Achilles will overtake the tortoise. Zeno's arguments are obviously false because the real World does not behave in the way that they predict it should.

If I fire an arrow from A at B it sometimes gets close to B, but I get your point. That's the motivation for investigating, certainly, but given we know our senses can be wrong, and given that we cannot definitively show the arrows actually exist in the first place, merely saying 'but I've seen it' isn't philosophically sufficient.

I appreciate that it's the sort of debate that makes most people look at philosophers like they're disappearing up their own arseholes: in the everyday sense you just read Zeno's paradox and say 'knob' and go and try to find where the arrows actually landed.

Zeno's arguments disagree with experiment. Therefore, we know they are wrong before we even start looking for the flaw in the maths.

Except that scientific findings are always only provisional. Some of them are so likely that we effectively work as though they were facts, but philosophically they're not.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

No, it was another example of the irony of you accusing other people of your own failings - in this instance, suggesting I'd made a supercilious comment when I responded to your realisation you didn't have a point so instead you'd take a cheap shot and pretend like you'd scored a point.

Yes, I have, that's what made it ironic - something it appears you haven't studied yet. Or do you dismiss that with the magic spell 'MIDRASH', as well?

And I keep pointing out:
a) Other passages of the New Testament say pretty much exactly the opposite, that Jesus has come to reinforce the Old Testament nonsense
b) Quoting scripture at me makes as much difference as me quoting the Silmarillion at you because I think it's a (poor) work of fiction.

O.

What is the point of you posting on here?  You, effectively have dismissed anything put to you, before it's even put! You are not a debater, you are a dogmatist, pure and simple.

[jeremyp]

If I fire an arrow from A at B it sometimes gets close to B

B stands for "Barn door at 30 paces"

but I get your point.

Don't stand so close to the barn door then.

That's the motivation for investigating, certainly, but given we know our senses can be wrong

I would suggest that, in this case, our senses can be proved correct experimentally quite easily.

and given that we cannot definitively show the arrows actually exist in the first place

I have observed people's behaviour when I have a bow and arrow in my hands. Generally speaking they tend to move behind me, showing that they are firmly convinced of the arrow's existence.

merely saying 'but I've seen it' isn't philosophically sufficient.

I don't think solipsism leads to fruitful debate. I have observed arrows being fired a number of times, so I'm pretty sure they exist and they do get to their target (in the hands of a competent archer).

Except that scientific findings are always only provisional.

But some scientific findings are beyond refuting in practice.

[Outrider]

What is the point of you posting on here?  You, effectively have dismissed anything put to you, before it's even put! You are not a debater, you are a dogmatist, pure and simple.

I don't dismiss anything before it's put, but if you want to cite someone else's words they you need to have a justification for thinking that the commentary is relevant - we're not talking about opinions of God after the fact has been demonstrated, we're talking reasons to think that there is a God in the first place, which you need in order to lend scripture any sort of credibility.

I'm dismissing a circular argument, nothing more, nothing less.

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

I don't dismiss anything before it's put, but if you want to cite someone else's words they you need to have a justification for thinking that the commentary is relevant - we're not talking about opinions of God after the fact has been demonstrated, we're talking reasons to think that there is a God in the first place, which you need in order to lend scripture any sort of credibility.

I'm dismissing a circular argument, nothing more, nothing less.

O.

So, effectively, that's what I said.  You will dismiss any thing put to you, with some sort of repetitive excuse, whether valid or not.  So my assessment stands.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice little 'ad hom' there; stay classy. I don't see that Professor Dawkins' fundamental philosophical argument against God has been shown as deficient at all: primarily he says that the case for God hasn't been made, and he's right.

His case for why religion is a bad thing needs some work, perhaps.

And yet he's the one that people keep crying about. It makes sense, of course, because he's the worst thing atheism has to offer, whereas we just have ........................ institutional misogyny.

I believe New atheism has come under fire for mysogyny and a certain High profile New atheist at that.

He called his great tome 'The selfish Gene' and provides a backdrop for the social darwinianism of the Thatcher era.

Atheism thus passed from being left wing and socialist to being right, libertarian, socially disinterested and  Xenophobic.

[Jack Knave]

If an infinite regress is impossible, then what caused god's first thought?

This is the thing with these attempts to twist and turn to make justifications for over-complicated arguments that get out of control - you end up pissing in the wind by defeating your own argument. God does not escape infinite regress.

The answer surely is that "Something" has always existed. If there is something and not nothing then some element of what we call life must have always existed; must be eternal.......well may be......

[Maeght]

I believe New atheism has come under fire for mysogyny and a certain High profile New atheist at that.

He called his great tome 'The selfish Gene' and provides a backdrop for the social darwinianism of the Thatcher era.

The phrase has nothing t do with right wing politics. It refers to the gene centred nature of evolution and not to the actions or characteristics of the organisms involved.

Atheism thus passed from being left wing and socialist to being right, libertarian, socially disinterested and  Xenophobic.

Society may have become more like that but to link this to atheism and to the book the Selfish Gene is just stretching things in order to make a point that you want to make.

[Outrider]

So, effectively, that's what I said.  You will dismiss any thing put to you, with some sort of repetitive excuse, whether valid or not.  So my assessment stands.

No, I dismiss what you say not out of preconception, but because you use the circular argument of "God, therefore Bible, therefore God".

Don't get me wrong, I expect on most areas of discussion surrounding the existence of God and the basis of the Christian religion we probably would disagree, but I always review the argument presented (if there is one) and deal with that, I'm not one to dismiss arguments because of who makes them, or without explaining why.

O.

O.

[Outrider]

I believe New atheism has come under fire for mysogyny and a certain High profile New atheist at that.

As a movement, the only people that claim there are 'New Atheists' appear to be people who aren't classifying themselves as New Atheists. There is a situation where man are significantly more highly represented in the groups associated with 'New Atheism', but that's no more a facet of New Atheism than the same balance in, say, Parliament or the FTSE 100 boardrooms. The movements have arisen in a culture of institutional, relatively low-level, gender imbalance (and, similarly, racial imbalance).

There are, almost undoubtedly, individuals within the group you define as New Atheists who are misogynist to varying degrees in their outlook - are you suggesting that's because of their atheism? Or are you just making the observation that New Atheism doesn't make people perfect, because there is institutional misogyny and individual misogynists in, say, most Western Religious institutions? Or are you just firing of another ad hominem in the absence of an actual point to make about atheism?

He called his great tome 'The selfish Gene' and provides a backdrop for the social darwinianism of the Thatcher era.

I suggest you read it, if you haven't already. If you have, I suggest you try reading it again. He specifically schools against interpreting society as a vehicle for social Darwinism; that other people took the idea of 'survival of fittest' and decided it was a fine work ethic isn't down to him given that he neither coined the phrase nor advocated for its use in that context.

Atheism thus passed from being left wing and socialist to being right, libertarian, socially disinterested and  Xenophobic.

Atheism has no wing, nor is it libertarian or conservative. Here you are confusing atheism and social Darwinism, as your first mistake - the idea that Thatcherism was at the same time advocating atheism is laughable.

You are also suggesting that these ideas are flowing from atheism, rather than the reality that they are associating with it or adopting it a the culture in which they are both expressed moves.

Various social and political classes might have favoured atheism at various times, but that's a facet of their politics and of culture, not of atheism.

O.