Discussion in 'SF Open Government' started by (Q), Mar 24, 2008.
Well then i'm a surgeon.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Thats true. Lets love SAM, in spite of ALL her problems.
Eh? Sam misrepresents atheism at every opportunity. Sam tries to attribute things to atheism that she just can't make stick, and then keeps re-iterating her falsehoods, even after her misconceptions are explained to her; that is the crux of her dishonesty.
this is true
I think she is a fine moderator, but argues like an ADHD kid hopped up on Pixy Sticks.
Could you give a specific example? I looked in most of the thread and did not see this.
She vehemently questions the philosophy of objectivism and realism which is typical for militant atheists and traditional 19th century (and earlier) scientists.
It is a controversial act. Non-religious constructivists and relativists also question the philosophy of objectivism and realism, in somewhat similar manner. Although this second debate isn't so obvious at this forum, but it does take place as well.
A true scientist would not consider someone who believes in God to be "delusional".
I am afraid many who call themselves atheists and scientists do not realize how little they have left to say once they declare themselves as atheists and scientists.
What about the atributing the mass genocide that occured under Stalin to atheism?
I have to agree. I think SAM has problems, but she did a good job in those threads she made ridiculing Atheism\Atheist. Perhaps this is the inevitable fallout. She did everything but show that Hitler himself was an Atheist.
I'm under the impression that she sometimes tries to accomplish something else than mere discussion. She seems to be in for debate.
The way she discusses, especially when there is a lot of zig-zagging, strikes me as a kind of psychological manipulation, an indirect way to get the opponent consider things they are unwilling to consider if confronted about them directly.
But just because hilter was an atheists does not mean that the holocaust was in the name of atheism.
Hitler's psychological profile:
His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.
OMG. That describes SAM.
of course not.
I intuitively consider this to be a strawman. But I find myself hardpressed to show why exactly this is a strawman.
I think a careful use of strawmen and other fallacies can be an efficient debate tactic when the debate already is taking place unfairly. Skilled debaters sometimes deliberately use fallacies when the opponent keeps presenting them with fallacies.
Someone who uses a fallacy against you plays unfairly. You can either try to reason with them, give up, give in, or fight.
I dont think that in the realm of the thesim Vs. atheism reason is even possible.
Surely you don't actually think she did that. :bugeye:
She was making a point that a absence of religion does not make the world better, at least in terms of violence? That violence is a human, not a religious thing?
She's got a point.
Separate names with a comma.