Skip to content

Why can’t people learn to argue?

August 16, 2010

Okay, I lied. One more blog because I couldn’t sleep.

Something interesting is still going on is that my last blog that I wrote on myspace on July 27th is still getting comments and emails. The comments and emails usually go like this, “you are wrong.” My responses to these usually go like this, “where is your evidence?” Then at that point they start calling me names. Those who read me on myspace know that my last three blogs were about conspiracies. This is not a good subject to broach on the internet.

I got equally frustrated over “proofs for God” and wrote two blogs here about it. Proofs for God come in one flavor. This flavor is that God is self evident. These arguments basically say there is no other explanation can explain the universe except for God. The real truth is that no current explanation can explain the universe. The answer is, “I don’t know.” That is the answer. These attempts on explaining God are based on a priori knowledge but a priori knowledge only works for things like “all bachelors are unmarried men.” You aren’t going to be able to explain something as complex as the universe or God that way. Sorry, you just can’t.

But explain that to Steven. Steven didn’t get the memo in the 19th century it was decided that most knowledge was based on empirical evidence or a combination of empirical evidence and a priori concepts. We have the philosopher Immanuel Kant to thank for that when he synthesized the beliefs of empiricists and rationalists. It is over and we are done with it. This isn’t to say that there aren’t philosophers still doing it but the vast majority of philosophers are now atheists. This is just a fact. It doesn’t prove that there is no God but it does prove that the philosophical arguments for God are not convincing the majority of philosophers.

Steven seemed like a smart guy and an educated guy. That was why I just gave up when he asked me why people’s personal experiences with God didn’t count as evidence. Empirical evidence is supposed to be something I can check. Science counts because other scientists can repeat the experiment and analyze the data. What Steven was talking about was anecdotal evidence. I can’t check anecdotal evidence. If I say my grandmother was a werewolf then that does not prove that werewolves exist. Telling a story from your personal experience is not proof unless you can back it up. This clip illustrates my point.

This is a congressman and a former judge who believes his “proof” is things like guys on the web named Tony posting stuff in support of his argument. This is an educated person screaming like a lunatic and not providing evidence.

And some people don’t even understand the principle of non-contradiction. If you can’t make your case without contradicting yourself that should tell you that there is something wrong with you case.

What this guy says about the tax credit isn’t true. Only if you make more than $200,000 dollars the next year or you receive substantial benefits will you have to pay the tax credit back for 2008.

Here is S. E. Cupp who claims to be an atheist but has written a book about how Christianity is under attack by the liberal media. She is unable to defend a single one of her claims with evidence and many of them don’t make sense on purely logical terms. The last claim she makes is that the movie The Golden Compass got much better reviews then The Lion, the witch and the wardrobe. Not only is it stupid to use movie reviews as evidence of bias but if you head on over to Rotten Tomatoes The Golden Compass has a 42% rating. The christian movie that is being “attacked” has a 76% rating.

There also is a video on youtube where S. E. Cupp claims that women like her and Sarah Palin are attacked because the liberal media can’t handle “pretty conservative women.” So it isn’t their brains it is their looks. Now, you will find liberals that are like this too but very seldom on TV. There are a few idiot liberals on TV and two of them have been on that obnoxious show The View. (Joy Behar and Rosie O’Donnell) But when you see stupid liberals on TV they usually aren’t politicians or supposed intellectuals, they are usually entertainers. This is not to say that liberal politicians don’t put their foot in their month it is just rare that you see them scream some kind of ultra radical viewpoint and then get mad because somebody demands evidence. The last example is Ken Blackwell on The Daily Show.

Notice that Blackwell is unable to defend himself at all and Stewart isn’t even going after him hard. In fact, he kind of kisses his ass. But Blackwell can’t defend his position. Probably because it isn’t worth defending.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. August 16, 2010 10:00 pm

    I read your insightful comment on my own blog and thought I would check out yours. Very interesting reading so far.

    I have subscribed to your feed and will be reading any new posts, too. It seems we have similar thoughts on many subjects. Hope to hear more from you about all things especially religion and politics. You are braver than I am when it comes to those subjects which seem to polarize most audiences. Well played.

    Nice to meet you.


    • August 17, 2010 12:54 am

      Thanks a lot. It seems like we are an incredibly polarized society right now. I reason is that few people really listen. I have been getting incredibly frustrated lately so your comment has made me feel much better.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: