This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Common New Atheist Fallacies

Common New Atheist Fallacies - Comments

MikedubB's Avatar Comment 1 by MikedubB

This is the best these guys can muster? It's pretty lame. No real substance. Just ignorance masked by eloquence.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:49:00 UTC | #190367

room101's Avatar Comment 2 by room101

Damn!...they cut it off right when this tool started ridiculing Hitchens - called him an "abusive person". I would have liked to have heard what this idiot had to say about him.

If it's anything like what he said for the first 4 minutes, than it isn't worth listening to...what drivel.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:50:00 UTC | #190368

Jimbesity's Avatar Comment 3 by Jimbesity

Hardly threatening. I find it marvelously humorous that they're just starting now to teach critical thinking inside churches. Hell, they're doing our work for us. I like this guy.

Edit: Wow! On part 4, he talks about circular reasoning. I reaaaaally like this guy now.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:56:00 UTC | #190369

8teist's Avatar Comment 4 by 8teist

Blah blah blah blah blah blah,
How on earth anyone could sit thru that garbage is beyond me .

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 15:59:00 UTC | #190372

Hypoluxa's Avatar Comment 7 by Hypoluxa

This guy is about as fallacious as what he is lecturing... having watched the 4 vids, he would be destroyed if he were to argue against Hitches, who he shows clips of ...and tries to explain to his audience about how Hitches is arguing the reason against religion..and is making fallacies. Simple cherry picking of points, and then trying to convince his audience that they don't apply to the core argument... therefor God exists!
This guy just doesnt get it.. lol Or he doesn't understand rational scientific thinking.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:00 UTC | #190375

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 5 by mordacious1

He starts off by saying that ridicule is not an argument. Just because christians are stupid, it does not mean that there is no god. OK, I buy that. Name-calling is irrelevant to the argument. I think he said this because he knows irate is going to call him a fucktard, but fine...I'm still waiting for him to say why any arguments that atheists use are fallacies, but must drive on maybe he'll get to it.

edit: Oh, I get it now "There is no god is an opinion" unless you can prove it. It's the old: the atheist must prove there is no god, if they can't, god must exist. No wonder Richard has to keep explaining that one can't prove there are no fairies...

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:00 UTC | #190373

gcooke's Avatar Comment 6 by gcooke

Tosh tosh tosh tosh tosh.

And on top of it, some really rubbish on-screen graphics.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:00:00 UTC | #190374

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 8 by TeraBrat

I thought his point that "ridicule is not an argument" was a good one.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:01:00 UTC | #190376

8teist's Avatar Comment 9 by 8teist

Jim, I think the only people who feel threatened are the fools sitting in that room listening to that clown.
They know their religion can`t cut in the real world, maybe they are starting to get desperate.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:03:00 UTC | #190378

8teist's Avatar Comment 10 by 8teist

When reason fails ,ridicule ,really is all that is left.

But yes, I also agree it is a valid point.







But it can be fun

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:07:00 UTC | #190382

Jimbesity's Avatar Comment 11 by Jimbesity

TeraBrat: I must agree with you on that one. I've always known this, but never bothered to think of a very clear and concise way to tear down an ad hominem attack in that way.

Greg's points are lacking and ill reasoned at best. He skips around so much, especially at the bit where he reviews Dawkins 'actual arguments'. He fails to mention that the ENTIRE BOOK is devoted to advancing and strengthening those arguments.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:08:00 UTC | #190384

stuee's Avatar Comment 12 by stuee

Sure, Hitchens says some things that don't have substance, but they are generally intended as jokes. If they had actually picked the wheat from the chaff as this guy is advocating, rather than the exact opposite, they almost certainly would have found substance.

Also, did this video get cut off at the end? It seemed as if the guy was just about to respond to Dawkins' arguments.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:11:00 UTC | #190385

Hypoluxa's Avatar Comment 13 by Hypoluxa

This guy is truly oblivious to the points Hitchens and Dawkins have made...

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:12:00 UTC | #190386

joshie's Avatar Comment 14 by joshie

This guy reminds me of Rabbi Boteach from a couple of months ago. And Prof Dawkins' remark: "Anybody who has something sensible or worthwhile to say should be able to say it calmly and soberly, relying on the words themselves to convey his meaning, without resorting to yelling" applies to this as well.

See how calm Christopher Hitchens is.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:17:00 UTC | #190388

lordxenu's Avatar Comment 15 by lordxenu

Whoa! Truly compelling, sir. I must immediately withdrawal all my arguments as I, as an academic, have not clue as to the nature of spiritual arguments....end satire.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:19:00 UTC | #190389

Corona Dave's Avatar Comment 16 by Corona Dave

>I thought his point that "ridicule is not an argument" was a good one.

'ad hominem' is not an argument, but I think ridicule of IDEAS can be valid, and that can extend to people who accept those ideas but only so long as you keep it focused on the idea rather than the person.

when you find yourself presented with an idea that is so stupid you don't know where to start, then using ridicule can be appropriate and kinda like answering 'mu' to a yes/no question that contains faulty assumptions.

if it's trivial to ridicule something, it suggests there is a flaw there. can someone come up with a counter to this by ridiculing a 'good idea', such as freedom of speech?

I think Hitchens ridicules Christianity when he presents his 'history of humanity according to Christianity' (humans being born and dying for 100,000 years before god steps in etc.) but I think his tone is perfect. there are ideas that are so repulsive that we should take a stand against them, and ridicule is a way of letting people know they are out of order and ought to be ashamed of themselves for believing such a thing.

I love the way Hitchens often challenges/dares religious people to say out loud what they really believe, which is an attempt to expose them (or rather, their ideas) to ridicule, but a valid one in my opinion.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:38:00 UTC | #190397

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 17 by TeraBrat

8teist,

Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything. It's not only pointless it's detrimental and counter productive. It makes people dig in and entrench themselves in their arguments.

You are better off saying nothing.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:44:00 UTC | #190401

ivellios's Avatar Comment 18 by ivellios

I think that he fails to realize that not only do atheists believe in god, but we think that religion is separate from god and that if you do believe you should be ridiculed at times.

I don't think that Hitchens really does much arguing about the existence of a god and really does argue against the premise of any religion.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:50:00 UTC | #190403

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 19 by mordacious1

Tera

"Ridiculing never convinces anyone of anything."
etc. "You are better off saying nothing."

What are you saying? I can't post here anymore?

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:05:00 UTC | #190408

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 20 by Epinephrine

Ridiculing does help convince people.

Maybe not the ridiculee, but observers laughing at the ridiculee then listen more intently to the ridiculer when he goes on to make a real point.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:08:00 UTC | #190412

quill's Avatar Comment 21 by quill

First they ignore you,
Then they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
And then you win.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:23:00 UTC | #190419

Diocletian's Avatar Comment 22 by Diocletian

There is something rather amazing about someone speaking for so long and still not say anything.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:25:00 UTC | #190420

Pattern Seeker's Avatar Comment 23 by Pattern Seeker

Looks like someone went kookoo for 'Koukl Puffs'...

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:28:00 UTC | #190421

8teist's Avatar Comment 24 by 8teist

Yep ,see ya later , Mord








he he , fuck ,ridicules the only weapon i got

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:28:00 UTC | #190422

Corona Dave's Avatar Comment 25 by Corona Dave

>First they ignore you...

when did atheists ever have the luxury of being able to ignore religion? :-)

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:29:00 UTC | #190423

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 26 by Dhamma

*naaaw* how cute, I think he was starting to cry.

This whole speech was just full of fear. He really isn't adding anything apart from exposing how crappy the theists arguments are.

The audience is such a bunch of sheep.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:30:00 UTC | #190424

quill's Avatar Comment 27 by quill

Dave,

You misunderstand me. :)

By "they" I meant crazy persons like the one in this video.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:32:00 UTC | #190426

riki's Avatar Comment 28 by riki

I want to know what the "Columbo Tactic" is. Have they been studying Inspector Columbo, to help dumb people appear more intelligent?

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:42:00 UTC | #190429

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 29 by mordacious1

8teist

I can put forth a rational argument, I just choose not to. Ridicule is much more fun and I can involve the kids, too.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 17:48:00 UTC | #190430

Dhamma's Avatar Comment 30 by Dhamma

Mordacious:

I find Hitchens hilarious and he most certainly ridicules his opponents. I wonder though, is ridicule effective? I really have no clue, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's even counter-productive. Or maybe there are different ways to do it, where some may be more mind-opening.

Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:03:00 UTC | #190434