Saturday, August 22, 2009

More Stupid Atheist Tricks (2089?)

This is from the comment secontion in the lattest installment of Metacrock's Blog.


Anonymous dmcderm said...

Um, Metacrock, hate to bust in like this again, but your fish analogy doesn't make any sense. The direct analogy for humans would be air, not God, and humans have known about air for thousands of years. You might consider readingthis wiki article to shore up this obvious gap in your knowledge. If humans can detect air, I think its fair to say that fish scientists would be able to detect water.

When I read things like that, and after I stop laughing, I have trouble taking the rest of what you say seriously. After all, a philosophical argument is only as strong as its premises, and if you think that we can't detect the air around us, when we clearly can, then you apparently haven't grasped that important principle.

9:15 PM
Delete


Blogger J.L. Hinman said...

Um, Metacrock, hate to bust in like this again, but your fish analogy doesn't make any sense. The direct analogy for humans would be air, not God,


my answer:
first of all, I don't think you understand what analogies are. Anagloeis are not proofs. They illustrations. Thus they only have to match up with they are illustrating. Yes, there is something more analogus to water for fish than God for humans. In other words If I was doing the Miller analogy test and I saw this:

Water is to fish as

(a) air is to humans

(b) God is to humans

I would pick A. But I'm doing the Miller analogy test. I'm illustrating the idea of how you miss something that is so close to you that that's why you miss it. See? So the point is God is very close to us and that's why we don't see him. He's not far away he's in us. he's part of us we are part of him. get it?



and humans have known about air for thousands of years. You might consider readingthis wiki article to shore up this obvious gap in your knowledge. If humans can detect air, I think its fair to say that fish scientists would be able to detect water.


Here are you merely displaying your ignorance. Three men in the history of scinece who discovered that air was good for you. Yes, we knew about air since time in memorial. we did not always know it was good! understand? that's part of the history of science and I studied it as my Ph.D. dissertation. Boyle was a big part of my dissertation. SO I know what I'm talking about I'm an excerpt on that era and you are not.

When I read things like that, and after I stop laughing, I have trouble taking the rest of what you say seriously.

But you see that's because you are stupid and you are not well read. you are very ignorant and like ignorant people you are arrogant becuase you think you know stuff becuase you are too ignorant to know how much you don't know.



After all, a philosophical argument is only as strong as its premises, and if you think that we can't detect the air around us, when we clearly can, then you apparently haven't grasped that important principle.


9:15 PM


this is an example of how stupid you are. You assume I'm saying we can't detect air becausre you are too dumb to follow the analogy and too ignorant to understand the history of human thought. So you jus tthin duh, we know air exists so ther's nothing here to see, duhy!

go read something stupid! go look up Robert Boyle you idiot and learn something.

7:10 AM
Delete


This makes me angry because here's this guy who knows absolutely nothing about the history of scinece. He probably doesn't even know that there is a history of scinece. I knew that there was a time when people didn't understand the set up with air and breathing and didn't really understand why if you block the air form someone they die. People knew that, but they didn't know why. I knew this way back in high school because i'm bright, and imitative and i heard it or read it or something somewhere and I just knew it. This guy didn't know it because he's not very observant.

But the real anger making thing here is that he doesn't understand how analogies work. They are not proofs. you start with the idea that you want to illustrate and find something that is as indicative or like it as you can, there are going to be things that are more analogous but you are not trying to illustrate those things. I am not trying to illustrate that humans need air. I'm trying to illustrate that the reason we don't see God and we have an obvious empirical knowledge of God si not because God is too far away, it's because he's too close.


The fish analogy is just amusing cartoon idea that a fish scientist is assigned to find out what this strange substance humans about is; water. He can't find it and it never occurs to him that he's looking through it while he's looking for it. Since this guy doesn't really understand what analogies are for he thinks the literalism of the correspondence is more important the illustration of an idea. Analogies are not proof. Most atheists argue by analogy which is fallacious. Analogy is only used to illustrate concepts.

Here's another analogy, this guy is like Jethro Bodine on the Beverly Hillbillies. He thinks he's ultra smart because he went as far as he could go in the educational system of the bustling metropolis of Bugtussel Arkansas.So when he comes up against something he doesn't understand in Beverly Hills California he just compares it to what he knows form the hills back home and assumes he must be right.

2 comments:

darkintheglow said...

Your insistence on your own intelligence and others' stupidity and ignorance is sorely, sorely undermined by the atrocious editing of your own post. You misspell "science" twice -- my irony meter went into the red on that one -- not to mention numerous other grammatical, spelling, and capitaliation errors.

If you don't have enough respect for your own writing to make it look professional by even just a simple computer spellcheck, let alone a quick read for editing, why should we have any respect for what you have to say?

J.L. Hinman said...

Your insistence on your own intelligence and others' stupidity and ignorance is sorely, sorely undermined by the atrocious editing of your own post. You misspell "science" twice -- my irony meter went into the red on that one -- not to mention numerous other grammatical, spelling, and capitaliation errors.




that's not a matter of intelligence. a person with a brain would inow that. Of course an atheist wouldn't. atheists are brain little zombie thugs who can only feel good when mock and ridicule others.

If you don't have enough respect for your own writing to make it look professional by even just a simple computer spellcheck, let alone a quick read for editing, why should we have any respect for what you have to say?

do you think I shoul respect these little thugs who have never read a book, who say "theology si so stupid I don't have to ever learn anything about it becasue I know how dumb it is without ever studying it?" should I respect them?

you are a fool if you are atheist you are a brain dead fool.

yes I insist up on my own intelligence. I am intelligent i am smarter than you an dI will prevail. fuck you asshole.

I do not have to be treated like a peice of shit by know nothings.

I wont that God arguemtn they had of any value to say and instead of trying to come back and learn beter respones they go "don't ever listen to Metaeock he doesn't know anything becausse he bleieves in God"

scerew you! I'm a find wonder greta person and I'm brilliant and screw you fucker. I am good. dman you.