+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Noam Chomsky on "New Atheism"

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone View Post
    When was the last time you saw a Chomsky book on the best seller list? I think the only time one has popped up there in recent years was when Chavez gave one of his books a recommendation.



    We're not talking about their other works, we're talking about their books on atheism.



    What are you even talking about? You're literally not making sense. There's not two sides of this to be applying a standard to unevenly. We're talking about atheists who write books on atheism, and I commented on the atheists who write books on atheism, and nothing else. Where's the "double" part of "double standard"?
    Chomsky, unlike Dawkins, is not attempting to pass his works off as science.

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with the athtards? Save the fact that anyone visiting get to see quite quickly how irrational atheists really are. Hopefully a few curious souls will be warned away from the dangers of becoming ... a hypocrite.


  2. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutral View Post
    Chomsky, unlike Dawkins, is not attempting to pass his works off as science.
    He works on linguistics and politics; and as he himself has repeatedly noted, his work on politics is separate from his work on linguistics. In the same way that Dawkins' work in biology is separate from his works on atheism.

    Sometimes I wonder why I even bother with the athtards?
    Because you are a sad, shallow individual who derives his self-worth from attempting to diminish others on an internet forum. Even more depressing must be your routine failure to do so.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone View Post
    He works on linguistics and politics; and as he himself has repeatedly noted, his work on politics is separate from his work on linguistics. In the same way that Dawkins' work in biology is separate from his works on atheism.



    Because you are a sad, shallow individual who derives his self-worth from attempting to diminish others on an internet forum. Even more depressing must be your routine failure to do so.
    Umm, is English hard for you?

    Dawkins cleary passes off his books as science, and yet they very clearly are not. They are incindeary, strawmen aimed at nothing more than disparagement. Yet Chomsky should be condemed for it?

    Standards. At least try to use them.

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutral View Post
    Umm, is English hard for you?
    No, but apparently it is difficult for you. Is it your second language?

    Dawkins cleary passes off his books as science, and yet they very clearly are not.
    Provide a quote. Because he has written some books on science, and other books on atheism,a nd to my knowledge he has never actually claimed that the books on atheism constituted scientific works. They reference other works that are scientific, but as far as I can tell he has never actually claimed that the work on atheism is scientific.

    They are incindeary, strawmen aimed at nothing more than disparagement. Yet Chomsky should be condemed for it?
    You really, really, really have a hard time reading. My comment--the comment about incendiary books--was about the atheist authors we were discussing, not Chomsky. Who himself does write incendiary books, but for a different reason. You really can't understand what people are writing, can you? You just kind of make up some assumptions about what they must have been writing, and don't bother to actually read what the other person says. Because I can't see how else you could possibly have taken what I wrote about Dawkins, Hitchins, etc as referring to Chomsky. You can't possibly have read that and assumed that my comments were directed at Chomsky.

    How foolish do you have to be to leap out like that, to base such invectives on your own imagined assumptions? And it's not just here that you do it, you perform the same "trick" in every simple argument you involve yourself in here. You assume you know what a person is saying without ever actually reading what they write. Literally, you must start writing your response before the person has actually posted.

    Standards. At least try to use them.
    I don't think you even realize how foolish and hypocritical that statement is, coming from you.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone View Post
    No, but apparently it is difficult for you. Is it your second language?



    Provide a quote. Because he has written some books on science, and other books on atheism,a nd to my knowledge he has never actually claimed that the books on atheism constituted scientific works. They reference other works that are scientific, but as far as I can tell he has never actually claimed that the work on atheism is scientific.



    You really, really, really have a hard time reading. My comment--the comment about incendiary books--was about the atheist authors we were discussing, not Chomsky. Who himself does write incendiary books, but for a different reason. You really can't understand what people are writing, can you? You just kind of make up some assumptions about what they must have been writing, and don't bother to actually read what the other person says. Because I can't see how else you could possibly have taken what I wrote about Dawkins, Hitchins, etc as referring to Chomsky. You can't possibly have read that and assumed that my comments were directed at Chomsky.

    How foolish do you have to be to leap out like that, to base such invectives on your own imagined assumptions? And it's not just here that you do it, you perform the same "trick" in every simple argument you involve yourself in here. You assume you know what a person is saying without ever actually reading what they write. Literally, you must start writing your response before the person has actually posted.



    I don't think you even realize how foolish and hypocritical that statement is, coming from you.
    Well, as yu dodge and come up wth excuses lets try logic.

    You initially condemned Chmosky because his works were incendeary and not ... science. The actual veracity of the claim he made are of course, not even relevant.

    Yet, when they are compared to Dawkins (who does claim the mantel of science) and Hitchens (who does claim the mantel of history), its very clear that these things fall short of their claimed goals - indeed, in both cases, their real intent appears to be nothing more than needle people, the actuality of academic standards in both fields long forgetten in this emotive desire.

    Yet Chomsky, who offers a cirtque with no more intent than that, is dismissed because he is not meeting some effeminate standard?

    What I read was simply a double standard, how one applies to Chomsky and another to atheists who behave the same way or worse.

    Its not a dirty trick - its how atheists behave. But you guys don;t like it when others see you behaving like that? So its are fault you behave like this? Right.

    Try explaining in a simple, civil manner why Chomsky is inflammtory but atheists like Dawkins and Hitchens are not?

    And then understand that moral conflection and double standards that you will have to apply to maintain that stanadard are subject to something called peer review ... or debate.

    Hard, I know.

    BTW - maybe you should actually READ Dawkins before you defend him. His book the God Delusion quite clearly combines what he claims is science with politics and fails badly at both. But you excuse it? Chomsky is denied? And you have read neither? Interesting.

    I guess that is more pacifist warrior type stuff huh?
    Last edited by Neutral; Mar 03 2012 at 01:33 PM.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutral View Post
    Well, as yu dodge and come up wth excuses lets try logic.

    You initially condemned Chmosky because his works were incendeary and not ... science. The actual veracity of the claim he made are of course, not even relevant.
    You mental midget, you can't even understand what I was talking about, can you? My statements were directed at Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. You just flat out didn't read what I wrote. Do you understand what plural pronouns are for? Because they sure as hell don't apply to as single person.

    You literally can't read English as it's written by the rest of the world.

  7. Default

    junobet you are spot on! As is Chomsky.

    As a long-time agnostic I wonder about this New Atheism. I smell a marketing ploy. But anyway, I wonder at the mindset of someone who chooses to define themselves in such singular terms. Yes, you're a New Atheist. Now what?

    It's a fad, contains pre-mixed thinking and is probably very high in sodium.

  8. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone View Post
    You mental midget, you can't even understand what I was talking about, can you? My statements were directed at Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. You just flat out didn't read what I wrote. Do you understand what plural pronouns are for? Because they sure as hell don't apply to as single person.

    You literally can't read English as it's written by the rest of the world.
    Yep, the ability to define and support a thesis statement makes me stupid.

    And another atheist blows his stack.

    Are you going to follow me around the forum like GZ and stoney now? Do I have to tell you as well? I am not gay.

  9. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Neutral View Post
    Yep, the ability to define and support a thesis statement makes me stupid.
    Thesis statement? This is not a paper, it's an internet discussion forum. What would possibly make you think the subject of my comments was Chomsky? That's what the quote was for! To frame the discussion, to make it easier to follow what I was commenting on.

    Are you going to follow me around the forum like GZ and stoney now? Do I have to tell you as well? I am not gay.
    What? You're the one inserting unrelated comments continuing arguments from other posts.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Someone View Post
    Thesis statement? This is not a paper, it's an internet discussion forum. What would possibly make you think the subject of my comments was Chomsky? That's what the quote was for! To frame the discussion, to make it easier to follow what I was commenting on.



    What? You're the one inserting unrelated comments continuing arguments from other posts.
    Yep, a thesis, the defending portion of a debate, is claerly not applicable - because it would force you to actually define and dfend a position .... and that is anethma to a pacifist warrior.

    Its impossible to figure out what you are commenting on, because you cannot even define what it is your support - and indeed reject the very idea of a thesis.

    Well, no doubt, like all the other 'atheists' on this forum claim, you are misquoted, a victim? Not what you are saying at all?

    Tell me S, what is it like to confront your worst fear? A religious person who is smarter than you?

+ Reply to Thread
+ Post New Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks