anthroban wrote:Remember kids - analogies compare relations between things, NOT THE THINGS THEMSELVES.

I know this is directed at the OP but the reason I hate the analogy is because people use it to make unjustified claims. I think it was Sam Harris who said since we don't all describe ourselves as non-stamp collectors, we shouldn't say we're atheists. Thunderf00t made similar claims though I'm not sure if he used the non-stamp collector analogy in his video. That's silly. If stamp collectors were starting holy wars, trying to push anti-science education, promoting bigotry, homophobia and misogyny and made up the majority of the world, we would have a word for non-stamp collectors. It's an oversimplification to say that analogies only compare the relations between things. You must also be sensitive to the context. They can misrepresent their subject(s).

Absolute bollocks, and a Dunsapy for missing the fucking point by light-years.

Coo, hackenslash, is that the first one on this site?

Indeed it is.

I'd like a dunsapy, Im'a say something stoopid now so I can get one, ok?

Umm, god is real because I feel him in my heart.

Ok... as I was never a member of "the old forums" here is a link for those people who are useless at tracking shit down as I just had to do.

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=105153&start=0

The Orson and Dunsapy awards.

Whether you use the analogy or not, the foaming-at-the-mouth creationist or deranged fundamentalist always walks away still thinking atheism is a religion. Nonetheless, the analogies are apt in my opinion.

sepermeru wrote: I acknowledge that it was intended to illustrate a single aspect of atheism with no reference to any other. I state that doing that is over simplistic and ignores the full reality of the situation.

Is not the entire point of an analogy to simplify in order to better explain a point? How do you propose to simplify an issue to aid understanding without simplification? The analogy was never intended to be the be-all-and-end-all explanation of atheism, but rather a simplification to make the explanation easier to understand.

I get that you don't like the analogy, and i get why, but i'm sorry to say that it has no bearing on it's accuracy. It remains as accurate as it was originally intended to be.

I see no problem with using the analogy, which can then be supplimented with further explanation if the situation requires.

You have a well presented argument (sounds condescending, not the intention), but i feel you have missed the point, any analogy is only as good as the way in which it used. Any analogy can be critised for not fully represting the truth, as that is never the intention.

anthroban wrote:Is that for me?

Not at all.

hackenslash wrote:Absolute bollocks, and a Dunsapy for missing the fucking point by light-years.

Was that directed at me? I hope not. I wasn't a part of the discussion you were having with the OP and I wasn't really agreeing or addressing the points he was making.

Yes it was. You disagreed with all of the points that the analogy is valid, and overlooked the point that no comparison was being made between the items in the analogy. Try reading through again and you might see why you earned it.

Well, I am guilty of not reading through the entire thread so maybe he was making a different point entirely. I never said that the analogy is invalid. It works perfectly fine on its own. I was just suggesting that the context in which it is used is important and although I don't dislike the analogy itself, I often hear it used erroneously (I hear it directed at atheists by other atheists more often than directed at theists). In any case, even if I am mistaken, I don't see why that calls for being a jerk to me.

Being a jerk to you? Where? The Dunsapy was awarded for the usual reason. The context of the analogy is contained within the analogy, and anything else other than that has nothing to do with the analogy.

Further, you said this:

It's an oversimplification to say that analogies only compare the relations between things.

Which is clearly horseshit, and worthy of the award on its own.

You disagree with something I wrote so announce that you're giving me an award for being clueless and posting a gif of a person slow-clapping. I'd say that's being a jerk. I would understand if we had some sort of drawn-out exasperated argument and we were both frustrated with each other, I would understand but I've never spoken to you before (maybe on rationalia? if so only on pleasant terms) and I don't really think that was called for.

You're right about that quote. I phrased it wrong. Analogies do only compare the relations between things. What I meant was that it's an oversimplification to imply that that's all that matters.

That's all that matters in terms of the analogy, because that is its entire purpose.

Take it easy, dude, and remember, you are not your arguments. The award was for the comment, and it doesn't mean I judge you in any way, I just judged what you said. No doubt you'll win some Orsons to rectify along the way.

All right, I'm sorry. I know I'm a bit oversensitive. Like I said, though, it's not that there's anything wrong with the analogy but analogies are never made in a vacuum (unless they're on IQ tests or something like that). The way in which the analogy is used can lead to erroneous comparisons. It's not the analogy itself but the way it's often used that bothers me. The OP was making a different point but it's something that has been on my mind for a while now so I thought it was worth posting. Maybe I should have just started my own topic.

Whether a hobby is anything like a religion is irrelevant as to whether the analogy is valid or not. What matters is whether the relationship between not collecting stamps and hobbies is the same as that between atheism and religion. That being said, I think that the analogy is somewhat flawed, although not for the same reason as the OP. If having a hobby is analogous to having a religion, then not collecting stamps is analogous to not having a specific religion. Atheism is not believing in god, thus having no religion, so it is analogous to not having any hobby.

Given the analogy:

Hand is to glove as foot is to shoe.

One wouldn't say that they are invalid because you can't write with your feet, because that's not the point of the analogy.

xwrv wrote:Whether a hobby is anything like a religion is irrelevant as to whether the analogy is valid or not. What matters is whether the relationship between not collecting stamps and hobbies is the same as that between atheism and religion. That being said, I think that the analogy is somewhat flawed, although not for the same reason as the OP. If having a hobby is analogous to having a religion, then not collecting stamps is analogous to not having a specific religion. Atheism is not believing in god, thus having no religion, so it is analogous to not having any hobby.

Then: "Atheism is not a religion like not stamp collecting is not a hobby". That somehow doesn't have the same impact.

xwrv wrote:Whether a hobby is anything like a religion is irrelevant as to whether the analogy is valid or not. What matters is whether the relationship between not collecting stamps and hobbies is the same as that between atheism and religion. That being said, I think that the analogy is somewhat flawed, although not for the same reason as the OP. If having a hobby is analogous to having a religion, then not collecting stamps is analogous to not having a specific religion. Atheism is not believing in god, thus having no religion, so it is analogous to not having any hobby.

I agree, that would be the only criticism I would have for this analogy. I think the analogy may work better as: atheism is to religion as not having a hobby is to hobby. Not collecting stamps, while not a hobby, doesn't seem to say anything about any of the other hobbies that one could actively be pursuing. Or I may be coming at this from an incorrect point of view. The relationship between atheism and religion appears to be similar to the relationship between not collecting stamps and hobby, despite not collecting stamps referring to a particular type of hobby.