I wrote yesterday that I really wanted a discussion with some of those alleged Dawkins-inspired trolls. Alas and alack, they limited themselves to a site such as this. Commenter Parklife thought I was a tad dismissive when I called it "low-hanging fruit", yet a perusal of the thread, I think bears out the description.
One thing I find fascinating is the almost constant invocation of "straw man alert". A question is asked, then dodged and Neil calls it a "straw man". I have yet to read such a declaration actually reference a true straw argument, that is, wherein the questioner puts words and/or ideas in the mouth/head of Neil or another interlocutor, then uses that creation as the basis for a question or comment. That is what a straw man argument is. I don't see any of those. Rather, I see Neil doing what Neil does best, dodging and weaving, refusing to debate in a way that gives his opponent any advantage. It's quite clever, but it is also dishonest, as well.
Like his constant misuse of the term passive-aggressive, his misuse of the straw man label shows that he is a good rhetorician. He keeps his opponents guessing and off-balance.
I just wish some of those folks had come over here. Why does Neil get all the fun?
11 comments:
Because he clearly doesn't know the difference between "I disagree with you" and "STRAW MAN ALERT!"
Heck, if you were going to prove that Christians are irrational, who better to prove that point that a bunch of folks who may as well still believe the Earth is flat?
Their argument IS a straw man, however. They hold up extreme fundamentalism as representative of mainstream Christianity and then spend their time knocking it down. :)
Oops.. didnt mean to sound dismissive. I'm not sure what possessed me to throw in that "?" mark. I guess it was really to say that this particular fruit may not be hanging at all. Rather, it is being kicked around in the dirt.
Some part of me actually feels bad for him. Then again, I'm guessing he doesnt want my sympathy.
In the end, I dont understand his logic on a number of his posts. He makes plenty of claims and seems to have "truth" all wrapped up. Hey, life must be nice.
It is quite amazing that he does have a following (for or against). For some reason, we seem to gravitate to easy solutions. Be it to praise them or tear them to tiny bits.
"They hold up extreme fundamentalism as representative of mainstream..."
A bit like Ann Coulter? Applying this to politics, I wonder how we got FOX pundits (or Chris Matthews types) into the mainstream.
Alan, on the one hand, Neil and those who flock there are pretty ridiculous. On the other hand, it is as you say with Dawkins and the rest. As I wrote yesterday, they invented a religion, called it Christianity, said it was the same thing as all religions everywhere and in every age, proved it was wrong, and insist it go away. There's enough straw there to feed a herd of cattle all winter. They argue with themselves, really.
Parklife - not so much low-hanging as being kicked around in the dirt. . . Such a wonderful gift for the turn of phrase you have. Must be that California sun.
As a gentle agnostic, you'll get no prositylising from me. It may be of interest to peruse http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/another_critic_who_hasnt_read.php#comments if you are curious about what the Dawkins types have to say among themselves. Like Dawkins, et al. Prof Morris is bright in his field, but hard-edged in his (lack of) theology.
As a regular Neil flocker, I ... I can't explain my fascination. It is really odd, actually.
Apparently my personal mission fields are about a far apart as Zimbabwe is from eastern Europe: what Spong calls the Christian Alumni Association on one hand and, in the other extreme, Christian kindergarten. Weird.
Not to quote myself or anything. But.. "He makes plenty of claims and seems to have "truth" all wrapped up." My goodness.. Neil really is that predictable. The only thing I'm left wondering about is... who wrote this (Geoffrey? ER?), "Furthermore, any other discussion will be fruitless, because we will come back to quoting the Bible again." I guess its all to dangerous for Neil's flock for him to actually give us the source.
Not to toot my own horn, but that was me.
Ha.. I knew it!
"A liberal theologian.." or.. he who shall not be named. Can I start calling you Voldemort?
I'm not a theologian. In fact, I am offended by the term!
The Dark Lord will suffice. For followers. Others dare not speak my name (or I will put the cruciatus curse upon them!).
I wonder why I'm not mentioned. Are they afraid I might show up and spoil their garden party?
"Others dare not speak my name (or I will put the cruciatus curse upon them!)."
And here I thought if I said your name 3 times you appeared. :)
"I am offended by the term!"
ha.. typical liberal..
First I read it as "crustaceans curse". Turns out that is something completely different..
"I said your name 3 times you appeared."
A great movie.. they dont make 'em like they used to.
Post a Comment