1. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24214 by myxoma on March 5, 2007 at 10:15 am

Does anyone else wonder if maybe the reason these guys get SO defensive over books like The God Delusion is because they really already know God is a delusion, but they are in denial because they are so emotionally attached to the IDEA of God?

2. Preaching to the converted

Comment #13310 by myxoma on December 17, 2006 at 1:03 am

>"remarkably fresh-faced man of 61,"

Uh, he's 65.

3. Intelligent Design teaching materials sent to UK schools

Comment #11724 by myxoma on December 6, 2006 at 10:49 pm

Truly frightening. Makes me wonder what similar groups are up to here in the U.S.

(other than Jesus Camp. -shudder-)

4. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11496 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 2:07 am

I found what I meant!

It's not Hypocrisy, it's Projection

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

5. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11494 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:55 am

I think we mostly agree. I think the only thing we don't agree about is whether theists are actually fully aware of how a logical fallacy "works". I think the majority genuinely don't "get it" and are trying to play along with what is generally viewed as "intelligent" language. (people like Kent Hovind, etc.

>"To make the accusation that the celestial teapot argument is a strawman, even though it is not, requires an understanding of what a strawman is."

I disagree. If they fully understood strawman, then would they be so silly as to accuse strawman where there obviously is none? I think it demonstrates a complete MISunderstanding. This is beyond hypocrisy, it's just flat out wrong. Hypocrisy could be pointing out an actual fallacy, when you are guilty of fallacy too. Pointing out and accusing fallacy where there is not a fallacy is just wrong.

It's like if Ted Haggard accused Richard Dawkins of being a sodomite. Well, I don't think there's any evidence of RD enjoying gay sex, but now there is evidence that Haggard does. Do you see how this is beyond hypocrisy? It's lunacy.

I agree with everything else you've said.

6. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11492 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:51 am

>"It's a bit much to expect honesty from someone who actively lies to themselves."

I agree!

I'm just making the point that they really don't understand what's going on with logical fallacies. They live in a fantasy world, not the real world.

7. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11490 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:38 am

>"I wouldn't see this as a strawman myself but I can see how a person who actually believes there is some credible evidence supporing the existence of god might view it that way.
"

This is exactly the problem. No one with any level of sanity or honesty believes there is actual empirical evidence "supporing the existence of god".

Any honest theist openly acknowledges their belief is based on faith. Thus, when they scream "strawman" at things like the celestial teapot, they are committing strawman themselves, because the teapot is not supported by empirical evidence, and that it why we use it as an example - neither is god.

8. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11484 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 1:07 am

>"which demonstrates that they fully understand and are conscious of what they're doing when they hypocritically base all of their arguments on logical fallacies."

Actually, I think it's more of a pseudo-understanding, or perhaps no understanding at all.

Remember, theists are taught not to think, but they are great at imitation. Often their cries of "strawman!", etc. are fallacious in themselves, in that they point the "strawman" finger at something which isn't actually a strawman, thereby committing strawman fallacy themselves. Oh the irony! yes?

Personally I've noticed that theist pseudo-intellectuals (do theist intellectuals even exist?) consistently copy scientific, logical language and create (to an uneducated, unintellectual observer anyway) "intelligent sounding" arguments and statements which are actually completely fallacious. This type of hollow rhetoric is the ultimate in dishonest pseudo-intellectualism.

I would venture to say that they actually DO NOT understand logical fallacies, but are just playing copy-cat, trying to kick it with the big boys.

9. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11481 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 12:59 am

>Looks like a symbiotic relationship, though it appears somewhat skewed in favour of the butterfly. "Here's some sugar, now I'm going to eat your children. Bwahahahahah!"


Exactly! I can't see how the ants GET anything out of having their offspring eaten and converted into sugar.

Certainly the process by which the larvae are converted into sugar expends energy and therefore the ants are getting negative profits from this.

10. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11477 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 12:29 am

I have only one question here:

What the hell did the ant get out of that arrangement?

11. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11473 by myxoma on December 5, 2006 at 12:02 am

"Given the astounding number of galaxies and potential worlds arrayed
overhead, the complexities of life on earth and the advances in our
ethical discourse over the last 2,000 years, the world's religions
offer a view of reality that is now so utterly impoverished as to
scarcely constitute a view of reality at all."
- Sam Harris



Wow! Harris is as amazing as Dawkins sometimes, when it comes to articulating things a hell of a lot better than I ever could.

Go Sam, it's definitely your birthday. :)