I was on a Christian website and I noticed two things. The first is that supposedly rational discussion was often countered by resorting to a biblical quote. That seemed very odd to me because these types of quotes are very weak in arguments. However, I then noticed that the guidelines say:
Now, suppose someone used Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
I would normally just paraphrase it to show how silly it is. For example:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
or
God hath said in his heart, Only a fool believeth in me. I am corrupt, I have done abominable works, I doeth none good.
But that would presumably be considered blasphemous. So, I can see that in this framework what would normally be a very weak debating tactic would now be very strong tactic since it could not be easily countered. I notice too that no one who suggested that atheists or homosexuals were evil could be accused of being prejudiced. In other words, you could be called a fool for not believing even if you had logical reasons, but you couldn't suggest that someone was a fool for believing even if they had no reason for their belief.
That would suggest to me that someone used to having discussions inside a religious framework would probably be shocked to find out how weak their arguments are or that they were unaware of what makes a solid argument. That might explain why someone like Kirk Cameron seems to think that his arguments are nearly irrefutable but why I find I find arguments like his so empty.
- All discussions with the intent of belittling or mocking Christians or Christianity will be promptly removed.
- All discussions belittling Christians by calling them mentally inferior, ignorant, bigoted, etc. will be promptly removed.
- All discussions blaspheming the Christian God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit will be promptly removed
Now, suppose someone used Psalm 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
I would normally just paraphrase it to show how silly it is. For example:
The fool hath said in his heart, There is a God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
or
God hath said in his heart, Only a fool believeth in me. I am corrupt, I have done abominable works, I doeth none good.
But that would presumably be considered blasphemous. So, I can see that in this framework what would normally be a very weak debating tactic would now be very strong tactic since it could not be easily countered. I notice too that no one who suggested that atheists or homosexuals were evil could be accused of being prejudiced. In other words, you could be called a fool for not believing even if you had logical reasons, but you couldn't suggest that someone was a fool for believing even if they had no reason for their belief.
That would suggest to me that someone used to having discussions inside a religious framework would probably be shocked to find out how weak their arguments are or that they were unaware of what makes a solid argument. That might explain why someone like Kirk Cameron seems to think that his arguments are nearly irrefutable but why I find I find arguments like his so empty.
via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1OUFwzx
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire