Does atheism promote snobbery?

[Alceste]

Atheism doesn't promote snobbery anymore than relgion in general does. An party that makes a valid point, or at least thinks that they made a valid point, will always seem arrogant to their opposition.

It does seem that atheists get accused of arrogance more often than religious people, but since it's almost always religious people making the accusation, it could also mean religion has a tendency to make people whip out accusations of arrogance whenever they disagree about theology.

 

[PureX]

Maybe you could explain in what way your extensive ramblings on the topic of what atheists believe differs from the "no true scotsman" logic fallacy. Maybe that would give you a point to prove.

You keep throwing out this "fallacy" that isn't a fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" analogy is more often TRUE than it is false. That's why it exists. Generalities are generally true. They're quite handy that way.

 

[McBell]

You keep throwing out this "fallacy" that isn't a fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" analogy is more often TRUE than it is false. That's why it exists. Generalities are generally true. They're quite handy that way.

The no true Scotsman is a fallacy:

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Fallacies of Ambiguity: The No True Scotsman Fallacy
Logical Fallacies» ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy
Atheism: Logic & Fallacies
No true Scotsman « Cubik’s Rube
No true Scotsman fallacy - Iron Chariots Wiki
No True Scotsman and Labelling “True” Religions -- a Nadder!
"No True Scotsman"
​

 

[Falvlun]

You keep throwing out this "fallacy" that isn't a fallacy. The "no true Scotsman" analogy is more often TRUE than it is false. That's why it exists. Generalities are generally true. They're quite handy that way.

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy isn't about generalities. It's about holding a definition of X, which item B falls into, until item B displays some trait that you don't like, so you change the definition of X to arbitrarily exclude item B.

 

[PureX]

The "no true Scotsman" fallacy isn't about generalities. It's about holding a definition of X, which item B falls into, until item B displays some trait that you don't like, so you change the definition of X to arbitrarily exclude item B.

I know that. But it doesn't apply in this case. Except to those of you who are too biased to accept anything else.

I WAS speaking in generalities. And I meant my points to be generally true. But a number of atheists who have already made up their mind that they're right even though they don't have the courage to admit defend it, can't accept my general truth. So they immediately jumped to extremes so as to point out a "flaw" (exception to my generality). But there was no "flaw" in what I was saying because I was speaking in generalities. And there are ALWAYS exceptions to generalities. That doesn't make the generality untrue, however, as was the atheists purpose.

It's a classic cheap trick in verbal debate. And I'm sure there's a clever term for it: using any exception to dismiss the rule, even though the rule is still applicable.

Here's an example. Most women like tall men. This is a general observation, and it is true. But let's say I'm biased against this trait, and therefor don't want it to be true. So I point out several women who don't like tall men, and claim that the fact that they exists proves that the generality is bogus. But really I've done no such thing. Most women do like tall men. All I've done is use the exceptions to wrongly try and dismiss the rule.

 

[Magic Man]

I know that. But it doesn't apply in this case. Except to those of you who are too biased to accept anything else.

I love how you use the No True Scotsman fallacy...while trying to deny using the NTS fallacy. Well done.

I WAS speaking in generalities. And I meant my points to be generally true. But a number of atheists who have already made up their mind that they're right even though they don't have the courage to admit defend it, can't accept my general truth. So they immediately jumped to extremes so as to point out a "flaw" (exception to my generality). But there was no "flaw" in what I was saying because I was speaking in generalities. And there are ALWAYS exceptions to generalities. That doesn't make the generality untrue, however, as was the atheists purpose.

So, what you're saying is that when you say "atheists" what you mean is "some atheists". Is that correct? If so, it would make things go a whole lot smoother if you just said "some atheists". Then, people wouldn't have to correct you so much, and you wouldn't get upset at being corrected and so on.

It's a classic cheap trick in verbal debate. And I'm sure there's a clever term for it: using any exception to dismiss the rule, even though the rule is still applicable.

So, what is this rule you're claiming is true?

 

[PureX]

So, what you're saying is that when you say "atheists" what you mean is "some atheists".

No. I mean atheists in general. Same as when I speak of theists, I mean theists in general. But when somone doesn't like the observation that follows, they immediately jump to the extremes to find the exceptions, and try to use those exceptions as an excuse to dismiss the general observation, as you and some others have been repeatedly doing. I understand the point of the NTS argument, but it's just plain wrong. IN fact, there are a lot of correct observations that can be generally applied to "true Scotsman".

If so, it would make things go a whole lot smoother if you just said "some atheists". Then, people wouldn't have to correct you so much, and you wouldn't get upset at being corrected and so on.

Oh, I doubt that.

In the conversation we are referring to, it was very important to most of the atheists on that thread to find a way of dismissing what I was saying. Even though they claimed to be open-minded about the existence of a deity, by saying that they couldn't rule it out. In fact, they have ruled it out and therefor they HAVE to dismiss ANY possible evidence to the contrary. They are not open-minded at all. And they behave like a pack of playground bullies as they rush around trying desperately to insult and humiliate any poster who dares to try and offer evidence countering their bias.

Anyone with eyes, who has been watching these threads can see this.

So, what is this rule you're claiming is true?

Im posting general observations, not "rules".

 

[nonbeliever_92]

PureX I should give you frubals for your ignorance, unfortunately I hate to propagate ignorance so you're out of luck...

 

[Magic Man]

No. I mean atheists in general. Same as when I speak of theists, I mean theists in general. But when somone doesn't like the observation that follows, they immediately jump to the extremes to find the exceptions, and try to use those exceptions as an excuse to dismiss the general observation, as you and some others have been repeatedly doing. I understand the point of the NTS argument, but it's just plain wrong. IN fact, there are a lot of correct observations that can be generally applied to "true Scotsman".

Apparently you don't understand the NTS fallacy, then.

Oh, I doubt that.

You doubt what, that people will stop correcting you? Well, if you stop trying to tell people what they think, they'll stop correcting you on it.

In the conversation we are referring to, it was very important to most of the atheists on that thread to find a way of dismissing what I was saying.

That's one way to characterize it. I'd rather characterize it as it was very important to most of those atheists to correct you on your incorrect assertions.

Even though they claimed to be open-minded about the existence of a deity, by saying that they couldn't rule it out. In fact, they have ruled it out and therefor they HAVE to dismiss ANY possible evidence to the contrary. They are not open-minded at all.

Where do you get this? Why have they ruled it out? I haven't ruled it out. I've ruled out the existence of certain people's versions of a deity, but not of every possible deity.

I don't HAVE to dismiss anything. I dismiss things when they should be. I don't do it to keep up my atheism. I do it because it makes sense and is rational. That's because I'm open-minded. I'm sorry your bias causes you to view it as us dismissing things because we need to to stay atheists, but you're completely wrong, and it's a stupid assertion. In fact, it seems to be you who is not open-minded.

And they behave like a pack of playground bullies as they rush around trying desperately to insult and humiliate any poster who dares to try and offer evidence countering their bias.

Yeah, that's it. It's not because you're posting stupid stuff. It's always someone else's fault, huh? You could never possibly be wrong, I guess.

Anyone with eyes, who has been watching these threads can see this.

Well, anyone with eyes who's been watching this thread can definitely see something. Unfortunately for you, it's not what you think. It's actually the opposite. Anyone with eyes watching this thread can see how ridiculous you're being and how you're accusing others of the exact things you're, in fact, doing.

Im posting general observations, not "rules".

Um...so, why did you call them rules? Can you just stop for a minute and try to be consistent please? It makes it very hard to have a conversation when you make claims and then contradict them when they're responded to.

 

[McBell]

Anyone with eyes watching this thread can see how ridiculous you're being and how you're accusing others of the exact things you're, in fact, doing.

this pretty much sums it up for me.

Of course, I freely admit to my bias...
I absolutely hate it when someone who knows not what they are talking about starts dictating to me what I believe/think/want/need simply so that they can hold onto their own Bovine Feces Filled beliefs.