Faith vs blind faith

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

With nary a scrap of reasoning. But eh, it's expected.

I don't need to produce reasons to dismiss your assertion. That you think I do need to counter your assertion with reasons is your error. Now that I have pointed this out to you - you're welcome.

I can just assert that I think it is possible to be a theist and think for yourself as much as it is possible to follow prevailing morals in the culture we live in or the laws of the land and think for yourself. Other people might have come up with the morals or laws but if I follow them I am thinking for myself. Unless of course you are asking me to justify Alan's free will version of thinking for yourself. Are you lining up behind Alan?

[Shaker]

I don't need to produce reasons to dismiss your assertion. That you think I do need to counter your assertion with reasons is your error.

In which case clearly you have no expectation that your blessedly irregular eructations need be taken seriously. Which is just as well.

[Nearly Sane]

Don't say "You're welcome" as I didn't thank you for anything; demonstrate that I'm wrong.

that would be you offering a run out for old NPF.

[Shaker]

that would be you offering a run out for old NPF.

That seems to be the exclusive property of the religionists: far be it from me to poach on their preserves.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

In which case clearly you have no expectation that your blessedly irregular eructations need be taken seriously. Which is just as well.

And you failing to justify your assertion is you having no expectation that your tedious pronouncements need to be taken seriously. Just as well Alan Shaker.

[Nearly Sane]

Doublethink.

Proficiency - even frank and outright genius - in one area doesn't preclude blithering idiocy in another. Case in point: Francis Collins, quondam director of the Human Genome Project and therefore somebody we can reasonably expect to know something of the scientific method, yet someone who, when it comes to what he regards as the rationale behind his Christian beliefs, acts like someone who has just received a traumatic brain injury. See The Language of God for details, where the three channels of a frozen waterfall confirms Collins's prior belief in the Trinity.

In fact here you can insert the name of any scientist who professes supernatural beliefs: Ken Miller, Karl Giberson*, take your pick. 9 to 5 naturalists and Sunday morning supernaturalists to a man.

*This is someone who in all seriousness wrote: "As a purely practical matter, I have compelling reasons to believe in God. My parents are deeply committed Christians and would be devastated, were I to reject my faith. My wife and children believe in God, and we attend church together regularly. Most of my friends are believers. I have a job I love at a Christian college that would be forced to dismiss me if I were to reject the faith that underpins the mission of the college. Abandoning belief in God would be disruptive, sending my life completely off the rails."

A long version of the No True Scotsman is still a fallacy.

[Shaker]

A long version of the No True Scotsman is still a fallacy.

It would be, if it was. But it seems you've adopted Gabriella's methodology for grappling with argumentation, i.e. don't.

[Shaker]

And you failing to justify your assertion is you having no expectation that your tedious pronouncements need to be taken seriously. Just as well Alan Shaker.

#397 is the justification.

The existence of anyone who thinks that an ancient text comprised of the maunderings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night is the last word in guidance for life is the justification.

If my pronouncements are as tedious as you assert, the remedy is simple: ignore them.

[Nearly Sane]

It would be, if it was. But it seems you've adopted Gabriella's methodology for grappling with argumentation, i.e. don't.

You are defining those who are religious as not thinking for themselves. This is a classic No True Scotsman. It's a blanket extra definition inserted by you. You aren't providing 'argumentation', merely assertion with a leavening of fallacies.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

That seems to be the exclusive property of the religionists: far be it from me to poach on their preserves.

Clearly not since you just tried to assert something, provided no evidence or justification, and then when challenged tried a sneaky "prove me wrong" counter-challenge that Sassy would have been proud of.

[Shaker]

You are defining those who are religious as not thinking for themselves.

That's right, and I've adduced evidence to that end. Hence your assertion of fallacy is misplaced.

[Shaker]

Clearly not since you just tried to assert something, provided no evidence or justification

Except I have.

Perhaps try reading a smidgen faster?

[Nearly Sane]

#397 is the justification.

The existence of anyone who thinks that an ancient text comprised of the maunderings of people who didn't know where the sun went at night is the last word in guidance for life is the justification.

If my pronouncements are as tedious as you assert, the remedy is simple: ignore them.

As already covered 397 isn't a justification, it's just you continuing with your No True Scotsman here by defining anyone who is religious as not thinking for themselves to justify your claim that those who are religious don't think for themselves.

[Shaker]

Put out by criticism of religion and the religious as you no doubt are due to wee white haired old mammy, I suspect that you'll just have to have fun working this one out for yourself.

[Nearly Sane]

That's right, and I've adduced evidence to that end. Hence your assertion of fallacy is misplaced.

No, you haven't adduced evidence. You put in a quote and then generalized about every religious person, and indeed all of Collins thought from a paragraph, while dressing up with some pretty words. Putting spray tan on a fallacy doesn't reduce it being a fallacy.

[Shaker]

No, you haven't adduced evidence. You put in a quote and then generalized about every religious person, and indeed all of Collins thought from a paragraph

I'm not quoting his wretched tome in its entirety, if that's what you were expecting.

[Nearly Sane]

Put out by criticism of religion and the religious as you no doubt are due to wee white haired old mammy, I suspect that you'll just have to have fun working this one out for yourself.

You really want to try a facile and badly expressed ad hominem? This must be where I shout house on fallacy bingo today from your posts.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm not quoting his wretched tome in its entirety, if that's what you were expecting.

And Strawman! With this fallacy,you are spoiling us.

[Shaker]

You really want to try a facile and badly expressed ad hominem? This must be where I shout house on fallacy bingo today from your posts.

Why ever would I stop you in whatever roasts your particular potatoes? It'll be of no more relevance or point than anything else you've offered thus far.

[Nearly Sane]

Why ever would I stop you in whatever roasts your particular potatoes? It'll be of no more relevance or point than anything else you've offered thus far.

he asserted.

[Shaker]

But with capitals in the right places.

[Owlswing]

I don't think young people need any assistance in the art of ridicule of the religious We live in an overwhelmingly secular society. Your picture of a non religious minority oppressed by the holy is one gleaned from antitheist rant sites from across the pond. I have sympathy for American atheists who face a red neck religiousariat but the spectacle of yourself trying to emulate atheist action is rather sad and lacks perspective.

How do you work this out?

In Northern Ireland the democratic process for equal marriage flounders on the reef of the Paisley's and their super-right version of Protestantism?

Various measures have, in the past few years, been thwarted or delayed by the Lords Spiritual and their unelected allies.

"Overwhelmingly" is, I think, an exaggeration at the very least.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Except I have.

Perhaps try reading a smidgen faster?

No you haven't.

You partly quoted a sentence from my reply to Outrider and then made an assertion in response to your dishonest quote mine.

The full sentence was :
 
"There are plenty of religious people who are no more and no less misogynistic or homophobic than atheists, so clearly there are religious people who are able to think for themselves and interpret their scriptures in a way that is compatible with cultural changes."

That was  #386.

Perhaps try reading the whole sentence before you assert on here. Your assertion is still dismissed by the way.

[Nearly Sane]

But with capitals in the right places.

Good grammar doesn't make good argument, or avoid your continual use of fallacieS (sic)

[Shaker]

Good grammar doesn't make good argument, or avoid your continual use of fallacieS (sic)

He asserted this time round.