The admin refuses to give me a rational response
So I sent in an e-mail critizing the article about Agnostics and here is the progression it's gone in. I'm pretty frustrated that "The Rational Response Squad" refused to give me a rational response. I'm not even telling them they're wrong about anything major, I just don't like them redefining my belief (as I'm sure they'd be a little peeved if I tried to redefine the word Atheism to include a believe in God). The person I've been in contact with, as you will see, only sends fairly curt and somewhat childish responses without actually addressing my arguments. I understand the RRS gets a lot of flaming from idiots (trust me, I live in the mid-west, I've been around a lot of idiotic Theists), but I'm asking the RRS to prove they aren't on the same level as the theists by either recognizing their logical fallacy and correcting it (hence no longer promoting fallacious claims) or provide a good counter argument, something more than that I'm insane and they don't have time to deal with insane people that day (which, as any of you with a basic philosophical background know is two argument fallacies wrapped up in one sentence). So read, and let me know your thoughts on my argument and the actions of the RRS. Thanks. It starts with their response to my first e-mail because it got lost somewhere in the months this has occured over.
[email protected] wrote:
Hey, I just read your "article" about agnosticism versus atheism...the
claims in it were completely unresearched and many false. First off the
author doesn't cite any sources for his information
That's how far I read before I stopped reading, because clearly you didn't read. Read it again... the god damned dictionary itself was sourced, Mr. know it all. And it wasn't a bastardized Christian version of the dictionary either, it was the Oxford English Dictionary, ya know... the most respected dictionary of the English language.
SEE ALSO: Agnosticism and it's many misconceptions by RRS co-founder Rook Hawkins, and the definitions from the Oxford English Dictionary. (listed right there in the fucking page)
Thanks for wasting 5 minutes of my life.
From: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2007 6:37 PM
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Looking for a "Rational Response"
Just sending this again since...for some reason...you didn't respond . Btw, I'm not sure if you understand what a rational response is, you see disregarding someones argument before hearing it out completely is called ignorance...not reason. If you had the slightest idea what a rational argument was you'd know that the article about Agnosticism was a poor argument. Also, before you dismiss me as "below you," I have an IQ of 140 (what's yours?) and I've actually studied philosophy. So I'd appreciate it, if you continue to claim you are the "Rational Response Squad" to...well...rationally respond to my argument. Don't read the first sentence and ignore the rest, take it as a whole and respond to the logic within. Remember it's the people you rail against that respond without thinking or really to anything other than the actual argument. I hope you enjoy, I've included a copy of what I sent you before below.
Ben Williams wrote:
Okay, did you read the definition that was linked there? Or any other dictionary definitions...or anything on Wikipedia or in a philosophic text book?
First off, the thing by Rook Hawkins doesn't offer any more help than the first article (he quotes an atheistic writer who doesn't really prove anything). Idiot. Did you even read the definition you told me to look up? Even that matches more with what I said than what the article is saying...it defines Atheism as:
/atheism/ Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.
/disbelieve/ 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence
to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.
1. To contradict or gainsay (anything stated or alleged); to
declare to be untrue or untenable, or not what it is stated to be.
2. /Logic./ The opposite of /affirm/; to assert the contradictory
of (a proposition).
3. To refuse to admit the truth of (a doctrine or tenet); to
reject as untrue or unfounded; the opposite of /assert/ or
4. To refuse to recognize or acknowledge (a person or thing) as
having a certain character or certain claims; to disown,
disavow, repudiate, renounce.
Now, before yelling at me again, read this thoroughly...this is talking about someone who specifically does not believe in a god. Now, look at the definition of agnosticism:
agnostic/ A. /sb./ One who holds that the existence of anything beyond and behind material phenomena is unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable, and especially that a First Cause and an unseen world are subjects of which we know nothing.
Again, read through carefully...it defines agnosticism more specifically than I did (though a more general definition is someone who believes most if not all things are unknowable...this coming from the root words Gnosis, which is "To know," add the A and you have "without knowledge" or "to not know," Agnostic is not based off of Gnosticism, but rather they are both based of the word Gnosis, just look the word up on Wikipedia or any decent encyclopedia to see this) this goes so far as to apply the lack of knowledge specifically to the supernatural and first cause. As you can see, it's definitely different than what your authors portray...and if you look at any other dictionary (as far as I know Dictionary.com, the source I told you to look at, is not Christian) you'll find the same thing. What we have here is your author slyly shifting the definitions within their arguments, if you are so ignorant as to not only not see this but also to never have cracked open an introductory philosophy text book (which would have had the exact same definition I've listed) then why the hell are you running a website on this stuff?
I'd appreciate it if you actually read through my entire e-mail, since you obviously haven't read through your article. Yes, you cited the dictionary (and another unfounded article from a person writing specifically from and atheistic perspective to an atheistic audience...great journalism) but you didn't do anything with the actual information given...at the best you ignored the definition, at the worst you misguided your readers about it's content, relying on the fact they probably wouldn't understand it...or even better just not read it. Of course there's also what many Christians do, I believe it's called "Preaching to the choir" in which you trust your audience will accept what your saying because they already believe it.
I'd also like to know what the reference to a Christian dictionary is...I'm not a Christian, in fact I generally despise the actions of both Christians (or more generally, many Theists) and "Hard Atheists" (as you call them), with some notable exceptions on both sides. I'm and epistemological nihilist...which is quite a bit different than a Christian. I'd also note that there are many bastardized Atheist things I've seen (dictionaries, textbooks, you name it). I think both extreme atheists and extreme christians have the same problem, they have so much "surety" that they believe it's okay to try to strong arm, deceive, or manipulate people into their beliefs. I've seen about as many examples of this on each side...so don't think I'm just yelling at idiotic atheists.
As for this argument, I'd like some more -actual- evidence, maybe cite some sources that -actually- back up what your saying...and dare I say I'd definitely like a bit more reason within your arguments. Also, please don't cite atheist authors to prove your points...if you had cited people who didn't associate themselves with atheists and didn't write atheistic propaganda I might be more likely to believe their claims (I think this relates to the idea I wouldn't buy Christians quoting from misguided Christian textbooks and "Bastardized Christian dictionaries.". It sounds like in all the arguments I read on your site that you want to change the definition of atheism to agnosticism...but let's get this straight, you changing it in your mind and it being that definition are two very separate things. If you're so unhappy with the -actual- definition of Atheism and you believe you're really an Agnostic then call yourself one...but please don't try to make your camp bigger by redefining what atheism means. Also, I'd like to request you pull that article from your website and post a public apology for misguiding your readers (unless you have an actual argument for what you were saying), it's the professional and rational thing to do. If you do not stop the deceit and publicly tell people there was deceit (to correct the false knowledge they might have attained) you are just as bad as the Christians you rail against...because they brainwash, deceive, and do whatever is necessary to get converts also.
[email protected] wrote:
I didn't read it because as I skimmed it I found several delusional statements. I don't have the time for delusional people today.
Heh, nice...so the Rational Response Squad doesn't have the time to give a rational response...you sound like a winner. What "delusional" statements were made? Ad hominem attacks are not a valid form of argument, if you can't tell me why my statement are "delusional" then how do you know that they are? Anyways, I have a full time job, a part time job, and I overload at school...so please don't talk to me about not having enough time. Again, I encourage you to change your groups name if you aren't willing to give a rational response to my argument (and as of yet I've not heard one). All you've done is throw up argument fallacies in an attempt to get me to leave you alone. So please, again, I'd like to ask you to give me a rational response ...saying you're to busy is just an excuse for not being able to (by the way, claiming your too "smart" or in some way too superior to provide a response is an argument fallacy also, please read a introductory philosophy textbook, all this would have been covered there in words even you could understand).