Reasons to be leaving (Part 2).
So I posted:
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And right on cue Sword respond with:
You seem unable to accept the fact that there are some who have thought about things and have reached a different conclusion to you.
You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.
To all the Christians (particularly those who have been posting here long before I came along), consider this: The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment. You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.
It’s all there: the failure to understand that logic leads where logic leads, not that this is an issue of “reaching different conclusions”; the repetition of the straw man version of “naturalistic philosophy” despite being corrected on it several times already; the avoidance of what circular reasoning actually entails, and – as ever – the shifting of the burden of proof by never once suggesting an argument for his god.
And in other posts we see the most abject failure to grasp what emergence entails and thus the crudest Paley’s watch reasoning of, “if it looks complex it must have been designed”, the continued misconstruing of Russell’s teapot as if the ridiculousness had anything to do with the underlying point and so on.
I see too that Vlad has returned with his standard tactic of, “lie, ignore the corrections and rebuttals and keep on lying.”
What then should we make of this? That these people do grasp the logic that undoes them but just ignore it anyway? Or do they just not see it – a bit like the toad that can’t see the snake when it’s turned sideway because that’s not the way snakes are orientated?
Either way, it all confirms my view that there’s no point even trying to engage. No matter how many times you say, “no, what I actually said was that 2+2=4 and here’s why” you still get the same basic dishonesty or ignorance in response.
Of course the people who behave this way could I suppose say something like, “yeah OK – I see the point of Russell’s teapot now so will stop misrepresenting it” but as there’s precious little sign of it I see little point in wasting time on them.
To my virtual (and virtuous) friends here though, my very best wishes.
