“Inspired by actual events”

Share

Too believable: http://www.beretta-online.com/wordpress/2011/inspired-by-actual-events/

It’s not that all atheists are that way. This is not a grand statement about skeptics. It’s true for many, though.

(Posted from my mobile phone)

7 Responses

  1. BillT says:

    Can’t for the life of me figure why any of these arguments would even raise an eyebrow. Aren’t these essentially the same arguments that Luke Muehlhauser and Christopher Hitchens have used. Isn’t this kind of stuff par for the course for the entire new atheist movement. They all basically hinge on the writers belief that his readers are as stupid as he thinks they are. That makes logic and facts inconsequential for the author. Actually, this could easily pass as a paraody of the new atheists and it’s more than a little ironic that the author doesn’t realize it.

  2. Tom Gilson says:

    Actually, Luke is better than this. Not all atheists are the same. (Hitchens, now, is much more emotion and rhetoric than real argument.)

  3. BillT says:

    I don’t know Tom. How much different was Luke’s “invisible, magical, wish-granting friend” than this author’s “sky daddy” and “zombies”. Seems more of a distinction without a difference to me.

  4. Tom Gilson says:

    He has his moments. Some of his work has been pretty shoddy, I just wouldn’t want to say all of it is.

  5. Crude says:

    I’d have to agree that Luke did, in fact, fall into exactly these kinds of antics in his discussion with you – and frankly, that was enough to make me move on on the spot. I’ll just leave it at that.

    And in other cases, yes, those ‘methods’/’approaches’ do seem awfully familiar.

  6. BillT says:

    And it wasn’t so much that Luke would try and use an “argument” like the “invisible, magical, wish-granting friend” (after all he doesn’t have much more than that to offer) it was the reason he used it. He knew that it would end the disussion. That was his his plan. It was obvious from even the “preliminaries” he was out of his league and stalling. Not that his intellectual cowardice was that surprising but it was cowardice nevertheless.

  7. Tom Gilson says:

    Odd for me to feel like I’m defending him! My point is that he has his better moments–but they’re on his website, and you’re right, they didn’t happen in the debate I had with him.