Cool Doug! About your book, my dad always said that “a hit dog always howls”.
Has Sam struck a few nerves?!
I’m looking forward to hearing your arguments. Hopefully you’ll do better than poor Andrew Sullivan did.
I’m listening to some past Gary Demar shows courtesy of the link at your website. Apparently you are to be inteviewed by him. I’m looking forward to it. He comes across as a real right wing christian nutcase. Right now I’m listening to him deny global warming and apologize for the old testament. :shock:
So. . . are you Doug Wilson? If so, do you always refer to yourself in the third person?
I googled your interviewer, to see what was what. Turns out he’s your publisher, too, so I guess this will be more like a long commercial than an interview, right?
Per Wiki:
Gary DeMar is an American writer, lecturer and the president of American Vision, an American Christian nonprofit organization. The think-tank has a vision of “an America that recognizes the sovereignty of God over all of life and where Christians are engaged in every facet of society.”
Is this what all Christian think tankers do, just sit around visualizing things they wish could be true?
I’m curious: Why are you only making the book available through Christian bookstores? Isn’t that just preaching to the choir? I guess it makes sense, though, since you can count on plenty of them buying up copies simply out of some sense of defiance regarding Sam’s book. But Sam was addressing his concerns and objections directly to Christians, so shouldn’t you have addressed yours back to atheists, putting the book out through mainstream sources? I’ll assume none were that interested.
But maybe this will go like gangbusters and you’ll become the Christian Sam Harris. I’ll hold off listening to your interview/commercial with your publisher, and wait instead until you can convince Sam to debate you. If your logic can best him, then I’ll consider buying and reading your book. Have you bothered to ask him to take you on?
Interesting, the image used for that one book site your new tome is available on, Canonpress. The orderly, obedient sameness of all those little yellow chicks is a bit alarming. But what a great visual metaphor for organized religion.
I just went to Amazon to purchase a copy & found it not there, then I read that it’s only available from xtian sources. Why? Is it that bad it won’t stand critical review?
Just another christian theocrat who can’t wait for the rapture.
The book will be up on Amazon in about 1 week. There was a slight delay, but the book is meant for secularist consumption. And what’s also neat is that anybody will be able to write a critical review of the book; it’s ok to do so. Just post it on Amazon, your blog, this forum, etc.
Also, you should check out Right Behind. It’s a satire/parody of the Left Behind series written by Doug Wilson’s son. These guys aren’t waiting for the rapture of which you speak.
[quote author=“AR”] the book is meant for secularist consumption.
So it promises to be well written! :wink:
If the book was meant to be addressed to us perhaps it might have been named Letter To Secular Skeptics.
Instead, you are pretty much arguing with Sam. He makes too much sense.
Part of the problem Andrew Sullivan and Rick Warren and his other jesus freak critics have is that there really is no good, reasonable answers to any of the extremely articulate arguments that Sam presents. So all you can do is spin BS. Facts are stubborn things.
Sullivan was pathetic in his defense of faith. He went into it thinking he was formidible and Sam very politely cut his legs out from under him, a experience that Sullivan claims “made his faith stronger” even though it may have driven a few readers “over to Sam’s side”.
Congratulations on that wonderful stream of ad hominems. Better luck next time.
Dave
And what is this except an ad hominem abusive fallacy? You are dismissing everything Mia said just because she pointed out some (actually quire relevant) facts about the author and publisher.
I have noticed a recent trend in some posters who love to point out the fallacies in others’ arguments. What was that about casting the first stone?
What I did was no different than the post I talked about, but if you want to diss Christians for their supposed inferior intellect, don’t do it by using a string of ad homs. You’re definitely not going to get your point across that way. That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
It’s the problem with posts like Hume’s Razor over in faith. Pointing out a fallacy destroys arguments when the people pointing them out are committing fallacies in the process. Hopefully they will tire of having their own arguments ripped apart and will either stop doing this, or learn to do it correctly. In the meantime, it is going to really start getting annoying. The large majority of the people on this site consistently commit major fallacies in their posts, but those aren’t brought up by the other posters in agreement.
It’s the problem with posts like Hume’s Razor over in faith. Pointing out a fallacy destroys arguments when the people pointing them out are committing fallacies in the process. Hopefully they will tire of having their own arguments ripped apart and will either stop doing this, or learn to do it correctly. In the meantime, it is going to really start getting annoying. The large majority of the people on this site consistently commit major fallacies in their posts, but those aren’t brought up by the other posters in agreement.
I’m all for pointing out fallacies when they occur, but we shouldn’t be committing them as we point them out.
Sorry, I’m a bit confused here. So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to commit fallacies if you’re not pointing them out in others, but if you are it’s unacceptable?
But this gets interesting. You point out my fallacy of pointing out a fallacy, and well….you’re commiting the same thing you’re accusing me of.
(Unless you were going to say that my reference to Hume’s Razor’s post was an equivocation error.) :D
If we could do that for (not to) each other without everyone getting their panties in a wad, we could have more productive discussions.
However I particularly despise ad hominem attacks, especially in areas where people are writing about subjects they most likely wouldn’t talk to their mom about. It makes people feel like there is something wrong with them for believeing the way they do. They are emotional attacks. They have no place on this board, yet I know I have committed this error myself. It is a tough habit to break, especially when others are doing it to you.
Maybe we need to establish a code of ethics for the board. Wonder if that would help.
Dave H.: Don’t take it personal. Logical fallacies have become popular attacks on this board the last few days. It is not you in particular. There is a large thread over in faith dealing with this issue.
[quote author=“Dave H.”]What I did was no different than the post I talked about
Maybe. . . Maybe not. I think Mia made some good points (even if she may have revealed her indignation at the same time). However, you are certainly correct that we should be as respectful of one another as possible. But people who have read my posts certainly know that I can get carried away in my criticism. It is easy to do when one experiences righteous indignation (or even what one takes to be such).
That’s the pot calling the kettle black.
And I was pointing out that your pot was calling Mia’s kettle black. And missing her very good points along the way.
Please stick around, join in the conversation, and offer friendly reminders to remain civil to one another.
God Bless,
Dave
God has never blessed me. And if He wants to start now, He will do so regardless of whether you have asked him to or not.
[quote author=“Dave H.”]Sorry, I’m a bit confused here. So what you’re saying is that it’s ok to commit fallacies if you’re not pointing them out in others, but if you are it’s unacceptable?
But this gets interesting. You point out my fallacy of pointing out a fallacy, and well….you’re commiting the same thing you’re accusing me of.
Are you adressing waltercat or MDBeach? If waltercat, you should note that I have never said that it is ok to commit fallacies. I said we should point out when a fallacy has been committed. But we SHOULD NOT commit fallacies att any time, especially when pointing out the fallacies of others. And I have not committed any in this discussion (if you think otherwise, please point them out).
