I’d agree with the article’s author that rational skepticism is a smarter (e.g. on average more effective) approach to evidence than unsupported belief. But I think his use of language is misleading – it sounds like he’s saying atheists are natively more intelligent, not just that they’re employing a more effective approach. If this equivocation was deliberate then that’s a major black mark against him.
Having said that, I’d remind Emily that not all beliefs are matters of faith. It is possible for one belief to be more valid (e.g. better supported by good evidence) than another. The author is quite clearly only railing against invalid beliefs. If you think he’s wrong for classifying Christianity as invalid then fair enough, and I’d be interested to hear your arguments, but it sounds like you’re saying “all beliefs are faith positions”, which is pretty clearly ludicrous.
It’s all a load of pooh. All he had was arrogant asertions, not fact. That is something most athiests want… facts! He is using the same arguement for his belief as we are for ours… faith!
Inflammatory rhetoric repels people, make no new friends, and essentially gets nothing accomplished.
Every so often, when I’m feeling bored and/or philosophical, I put my thoughts on atheism together in a little essay – logical, rigorous, non-inflammatory, non-rhetorical. Quite often I post these on my blog.
And not once have I had a response to any of them. Not once have I received any indication that someone has actually read them, let alone paid any attention to what they say.
Inflammatory rhetoric may repel people, but at least it gets their attention. It may not make friends, but at least it doesn’t get ignored. It may accomplish nothing – but apparently neither does cold-blooded appraisal of the facts.
I personally don’t like the style this guy took in his essay. I wouldn’t use that style. But I don’t think his approach is dumber than mine. If anything, it’s smarter.
follow:
That’s…asinine. And I love the last sentence, which is basically “Don’t tell me you base your faith on faith!” Um, okay.
I’d agree with the article’s author that rational skepticism is a smarter (e.g. on average more effective) approach to evidence than unsupported belief. But I think his use of language is misleading – it sounds like he’s saying atheists are natively more intelligent, not just that they’re employing a more effective approach. If this equivocation was deliberate then that’s a major black mark against him.
Having said that, I’d remind Emily that not all beliefs are matters of faith. It is possible for one belief to be more valid (e.g. better supported by good evidence) than another. The author is quite clearly only railing against invalid beliefs. If you think he’s wrong for classifying Christianity as invalid then fair enough, and I’d be interested to hear your arguments, but it sounds like you’re saying “all beliefs are faith positions”, which is pretty clearly ludicrous.
Wow, here is a surprise…
Inflammatory rhetoric repels people, make no new friends, and essentially gets nothing accomplished.
It’s all a load of pooh. All he had was arrogant asertions, not fact. That is something most athiests want… facts! He is using the same arguement for his belief as we are for ours… faith!
Back up your asertions buddy!
Inflammatory rhetoric repels people, make no new friends, and essentially gets nothing accomplished.
Every so often, when I’m feeling bored and/or philosophical, I put my thoughts on atheism together in a little essay – logical, rigorous, non-inflammatory, non-rhetorical. Quite often I post these on my blog.
And not once have I had a response to any of them. Not once have I received any indication that someone has actually read them, let alone paid any attention to what they say.
Inflammatory rhetoric may repel people, but at least it gets their attention. It may not make friends, but at least it doesn’t get ignored. It may accomplish nothing – but apparently neither does cold-blooded appraisal of the facts.
I personally don’t like the style this guy took in his essay. I wouldn’t use that style. But I don’t think his approach is dumber than mine. If anything, it’s smarter.
Not that I’m bitter or anything…