Religion

Fumesucker

(45,851 posts)

36. The part you quoted contained an explicit untruth

Tue Apr 1, 2014, 11:03 PM

Apr 2014

Dawkins has never claimed to be able to disprove god.

That's not even a strawman, there's a good chance it's a knowing lie.

Why waste time reading something that begins by not just distorting but breaking the truth?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Of Epistemology and the Varieties of Atheism [View all] rug Mar 2014 OP

Just as condescending towards atheists as Dawkins is towards theists. Pffft! djean111 Mar 2014 #1

Yeah, there are striking similarities. rug Mar 2014 #2

This author says things that are scientifically untrue. He's unaware of "phantom limb" pain Brettongarcia Mar 2014 #3

Do you actually think edhopper Mar 2014 #4

Nope. djean111 Mar 2014 #5

As a matter of fact, yes. rug Mar 2014 #6

Well, rug. One does not want to tread too deeply into the demarcation problem. longship Mar 2014 #13

The demarcation line is entirely arbitrary. rug Mar 2014 #14

You've got it. longship Mar 2014 #15

Thanks. rug Mar 2014 #16

I like the metaphor okasha Mar 2014 #17

That's good but they're not always traveling in the same direction. rug Mar 2014 #18

Strawman Richard Dawkins strikes again! Rob H. Mar 2014 #7

What can one say to this? longship Mar 2014 #8

In other words, he says something quite different. okasha Mar 2014 #9

Well, I read the article at the link. longship Mar 2014 #10

Good 'nuff. okasha Mar 2014 #11

My best regards. longship Mar 2014 #12

Why would I keep reading a pack of lies? AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #20

Haha ha what a pile of shit in text format. Impressive, rug. AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #19

And that's an impressive and stinging critique, AtheistCrusader. rug Mar 2014 #21

The entire section you excerpted is steaming with ad hom, strawmen, and a host of other AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #22

"I'm not going to click through to the source" sounds like you haven't read it. rug Mar 2014 #24

I read what you excerpted. And that material is vile and dishonest. AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #25

Maybe you should just read before popping off with a prejudged opinion about what you didn't read. rug Mar 2014 #28

What incentive could I possibly have to lend benefit of the doubt after you posted that vile AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #32

The same one I had before reading your post. rug Mar 2014 #33

That makes absolutely no sense. AtheistCrusader Mar 2014 #34

I really don't care if you read it. rug Apr 2014 #35

The part you quoted contained an explicit untruth Fumesucker Apr 2014 #36

That line was in one of the first four paragraphs. rug Apr 2014 #38

Um, I cited the paragraph. So clearly I read it. As did multiple other posters. AtheistCrusader Apr 2014 #37

The article is more than one paragraph and you're opining on the whole article. rug Apr 2014 #39

I opined on the author's dishonesty and his output based on your own excerpt. AtheistCrusader Apr 2014 #40

Reading comprehension requires reading. rug Apr 2014 #41

I read what you cited. It's dishonest as hell. AtheistCrusader Apr 2014 #42

Wittgenstein just said speak of things knowable. As for the rest? Pass them by in silence Brettongarcia Mar 2014 #23

Pretty sure that hat we know about the universe... Deep13 Mar 2014 #26

Pretty sure that what we know about the universe... cbayer Mar 2014 #27

Varieties? Either you believe in gods or you don't. The rest is self-serving drivel. You should know mr blur Mar 2014 #29

That is true if you apply only a very narrow definition of atheism. cbayer Mar 2014 #30

Are you familiar with Atheism+? rug Mar 2014 #31

Is this article meant to be ironic? chrisa Apr 2014 #43