Comments on: How To Fail At Atheism

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:24:53 +0000

Yes, an agnostic atheist. I've never denied being one. Your point being?

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:23:52 +0000

No, there are plenty of options here, but only two if she doesn't want to be a hypocrite. Here are the options:

1) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that nobody should write anything negative about anything else.
2) Jennie is not a hypocrite and thinks that is is fine for people to write negatively about anything else.
3) Jennie is a hypocrite and thinks that people A shouldn't write negative things about people B, but people B should be able to write negative things about people A.

There are plenty of options within the last option (3), but it would make her a hypocrite. As soon as you start favoring one opinion over another, we have fascism.

Now, I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite (I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt, and who wants to be a hypocrite?), so she either must say that if atheists cannot talk about religion, religion cannot talk about atheists, or that we can all talk about anything we want.

She made it quite clear that she didn't want atheists talking about religion, so there is only one option remaining. Of course, if she wants to be a hypocrite she can enforce a fascist viewpoint, but she didn't come across as such a person to me.

Oh, and assuming only makes your argument weak if you don't assume form both sides. I did that; I assumed that she wasn't a hypocrite and that she was and evaluated where her argument would lead her in both cases.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:14:35 +0000

Meh. At the end of the day she contacted me. She knew I ran a blog (her entire first comment was about it). I respected her privacy by getting rid of her last name. If she comes here and lets her full name be known, that is her right. There is currently no difference between what I have done and writing the same thing but putting "anonymous" next to it, or claiming some other story.

By: hatehypocracy

hatehypocracy — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:21:59 +0000

right now, i only have time to get into the last hole. look at the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. the theory of evolution creating the world we live in is macro evolution and has never been observed. the evolution that happens every day is an example of micro evolution, which doesn't prove that the theory of evolution is correct.

By: hhft

hhft — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:19:17 +0000

that would make you an agnostic then.

By: hhft

hhft — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:17:43 +0000

you're argument is an either/or argument. the problem with those arguments is that it gives the reader two options, and makes it seem as if those are the only two.

you are making ASSUMPTIONS by saying there are only 2 options here. you don't know what kind of world she wants to live in. you can only ASSUME unless she's already told you specifically. don't assume. it's unprofessional and makes your argument weak.

By: hhft

hhft — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 01:14:15 +0000

why even include their first name? you could have easily have left that part out. and even if she said she understands why you would write about it, that doesn't mean she wanted her private words to you published on the internet. i think that its a bit unfair of you to assume she was ok with it. did you even warn her before hand that you would be writting about it? i'm not talking about telling her after the fact, i'm talking about saying something like, "hey, i'm going to be publishing everything you said online." or maybe giving her the chance to say she would like some parts left out. did you let her know that you give yourself the rights to publish it unless you have agreed to privacy? maybe if you had she would have asked for what she said to be kept private. you said that you had recieved a message from her. that implies that she wanted this kept at least some what private. she didn't post it on your wall for everyone to see–she opted for a more pirvate way.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 12:04:08 +0000

Well I'm sure the cancer survivors who got cured through chemotherapy would love to know that you think so low of it. I'm sure you have more knowledge on the subject than the millions of doctors who use it.

That said, Chemotherapy is far from perfect. In some instance it can be life-saving, in others it can only extend the months or years people have left. Luckily for Daniel, the Hodgkin lymphoma he has is one of the ailments curable by chemotherapy.

By: AVM

AVM — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:35:08 +0000

Just a thought on one of your examples. I don't agree with this parents' reasoning, I do agree with not giving Daniel Hauser chemo. Chemo is more dangerous than cancer and is not a cure, and you're chastising them for keeping their son out of it? If they shot their son in the head "for his cancer" would it be any worse? I can quarantee you it would be less painful.

They may have been wrong to rely on religion, but they were right to keep him out of chemo. Never the less and above all else they were still wrong to not let him make his own decision.

By: Adrian Hayter

Adrian Hayter — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 13:13:04 +0000

That's why she said this earlier on in the conversation then:

I'm sure you'll be making fun of me on your blog eventually, and you're probably even making fun of me now. That's the type of thing I would've done in the past, too. I don't blame you, in fact, I completely understand.

If someone makes bad arguments in a private correspondence to me, I will post them on my blog (using only their first name) as I always do. Unless we've previously agreed to some kind of private-only deal, I don't see anything wrong with posting stuff here, especially since someone has (a) made the effort to tell me something about my blog, and (b) has said they understand why I would make fun of it.