Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: 03/13/04 1:56pm
In reply to:
Baz
's message, "The ultimate premise" on 03/12/04 8:30pm
>The arguments of extreme theists, such as Wade
Really? I'm "extreme"? How so?
>must
>ever remain ridiculous
Ridiculous eh? How about that Tristram Shandy paradox? Perhaps it can be resolved, perhaps one of the premises is wrong, but you haven't provided any basis for showing so. It seems a bit presumptuous to call that argument at least, “ridiculous” if you have no reason to think so.
>because the conclusion they
>hope to arrive at happens to be their ultimate
>premise: God exists
Hmm, I don't think that's been a premise in any argument I've used. (If you think otherwise, I request a specific example).
>This is why they are forced to put
>forward the indefensible assertion that atheism is a
>religion.
You think I believe atheism is a religion?
Baz, I think you need to be a bit more careful. It's been my experience that in controversial and fervent debates, zealousness tends to increase the risks of misconstruing or distorting the opposition, attack a position using albeit closely related yet irrelevant information/argumentation, seeing things that aren't there and missing things that are. For instance, regarding the Tristram Shandy paradox thread you said I had no premises in my argument against an infinite past, yet my premises (true or not) were clearly there. How do you account for this oversight? Speaking of distorting the opposition, what about the "Surely your Jorge" remark? What prompted you to make that? What mistake(s) do you think I made?
I suggest a bit of caution.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
|
Feedback: 