How the Internet May Have Helped Turn an Obscure, Seldom-Seen Fallacy of Logic into a Fire Storm

[LuisDantas]

The "logic" in quotes, yes, as these same atheists so pride themselves on logic and their purported penchant for falsifiability.

I think you are being rather biased here, frankly.

It may be at least in part because theism somewhat forces its own to be lenient towards a high incidency of oddballs among its ranks. Atheism does not have to saddle itself comparably.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The "logic" in quotes, yes, as these same atheists so pride themselves on logic and their purported penchant for falsifiability.

Wait...you're holding up the most absurd behaviour by atheists in a thread about nut-picking, using it to judge 'self avowed atheists' whatever the heck THAT is supposed to mean, and you think it's other people who have logic issues?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

That's a fair point. Although, I am now wondering who came up with the label "intelligent design". As it would logically have included a lot of ideas far beyond what it now is being used by both sides to represent.

Kind of. Intelligent design as a concept had existed, but it was first used in it's present form in a school text book in the 80s.

The words 'creationism', 'creation', etc were literally removed and replaced with 'intelligent design'.

That was the disingenuous response to a ruling by the courts banning 'creation science' from the science curriculum.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

It occurs to me, on reflection, that this is a disturbingly nonpartisan trend. While the tribal conservatives happily make the extremely unusual terrorists and multiple rapist/murderer illegal immigrant their depiction of all Muslims and Mexicans, in fairness, tribal liberals are pretty fast to bring up mass shooters and wrongful castle doctors to represent all gun owners, or KKK lynchmobs any time anyone says something like "wearing clothes from another culture doesn't necessarily seem that big of a deal..."

 

[PureX]

I think you are being rather biased here, frankly.

Of course you do.

It may be at least in part because theism somewhat forces its own to be lenient towards a high incidency of oddballs among its ranks.

That there are more "oddballs" among the ranks of theists than among the ranks of atheists, and that theists somehow enforce leniency toward them is, itself, an example of buying into the logical fallacy under discussion.

 

[PureX]

Wait...you're holding up the most absurd behaviour by atheists in a thread about nut-picking, using it to judge 'self avowed atheists' whatever the heck THAT is supposed to mean, and you think it's other people who have logic issues?

"Nut-huh! YOU did!" is not a reasoned argument, or even a reasonable criticism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course you do.

Indeed. Because that is what the available facts and evidences show me.

That there are more "oddballs" among the ranks of theists than among the ranks of atheists, and that theists somehow enforce leniency toward them is, itself, an example of buying into the logical fallacy under discussion.

If you have convinced yourself that what I say is unworthy of consideration, I have no choice but to disregard your opinions, isn't that true?

People have no duty to feel subjected to your judgement, nor to lend it significance or worth.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

To return to the original point, the reason why nutpicking has become popular is that there are more nuts to pick! In the old days, if a complete crank wanted to promote an idea, they had to pay to produce an self-published pamphlet and to advertise it. Today, all they need is a website or even just access to social media.

 

[David T]

Yup, but its not controversial. Trust me!!

All I meant was that atheists showing ID quotes Is only 'nut-picking' if they're using those quotes as 'Examples of crazy crap theists say' or similar.

If they're showing ID quotes which are representative of ID beliefs, and using them to make an argument about ID, that's not nut-picking. It's simply an example.

It sounded like @David T was suggesting atheists are nut-picking when they quote ID proponents. It strikes me that the claim is ENTIRELY contextual.

Yes. If its actually a "science" discussion then indeed.

Science does not need god to do science. I do science daily. The topic ID or YEC is not biblical its not christian its all science fiction nonsense. Identical to bigfoot.

 

[David T]

This thread is about nut picking, not cherry picking...lol

Question is, when people disparage ID, are they targetting theists, or proponents of ID?

If the former, then it's nutpicking. If the latter, it's not.

I have a diificult time with what is described here on this site as theism even. It seems to lack self awareness and awareness of nature and the world around them. Its more if an intellectual jerk off than anything actually. I even actually have a degree in the topic.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"Nut-huh! YOU did!" is not a reasoned argument, or even a reasonable criticism.

*laughs*

That's fine, since it in no way represents my point and is simply a deflection.

You are using the behaviour of some atheists to describe atheist-behaviour generally.
That is the definition of nut-picking, which is the OP of this thread.

You are doing this to show that atheists nut-pick.

The irony appears lost on you.

 

[YmirGF]

I'm curious what other reasons you think there might be for why the fallacy is so common today?

TRUMP! (Figured I'd get that in before @Riders )