|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Underlying Philosophy | |||||||||||||||||
Tram law Member (Idle past 4732 days) Posts: 283 From: Weed, California, USA Joined: |
If one doesn't know how to respond to an argument, does that automatically mean that they've lost the argument and should change their previous stance to match the stance of the person with the "better" argument?
(Better meaning, more verbose with more information) Also, one thing I've noticed about some people who don't believe in some subjects, is that it's because they can't understand it at all. So because they can't understand it, they deny it. Is there a proper name for this stance? (Example, I can't understand Evolution so it must not be true no matter what.)
|
|||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Tram law writes: If one doesn't know how to respond to an argument, does that automatically mean that they've lost the argument and should change their previous stance to match the stance of the person with the "better" argument? Not at all. Many people confronted by a babbling, nude, knife-wielding crazy person slathered in a combination of mustard and feces would be unsure of how to respond or react, but it is hardly a reason to join in the behavior. Additionally, the strength of an argument is not based on its verbosity or the amount of information it contains. In fact, the best and strongest arguments are often the simplest and requiring the least amount of included data. Inability to understand an argument is often more the fault of the presenter than the beholder.
Tram law writes: Also, one thing I've noticed about some people who don't believe in some subjects, is that it's because they can't understand it at all. So because they can't understand it, they deny it. Is there a proper name for this stance? "Denial" tends to cover it. As for the source, it varies but can often be cognitive dissonance. They may believe something strongly and their incomplete or incorrect view of evolutionary theory conflicts with that belief. This might cause them to doubt or deny evolution regardless of the truth of their previous belief; it might be religious and unfounded, or completely correct and simply contrary to their flawed understanding of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||
sac51495 Member (Idle past 4747 days) Posts: 176 From: Atlanta, GA, United States Joined: |
.
|
|||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 312 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
. That was very Zen. I think I just achieved satori.
|
|||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
sac51495 writes: It appears that your Biblical hermeneutic is not centered around bringing glory to God, but to justify your wish to be as Adam and Eve wished to be: to determine good and evil. Ah yes, the great GIFT. The single most important part of that fable.
sac51495 writes: 1. - If God's opinions of morals can change, then did Jesus' death really pay for all of your sins? Suppose that certain things you have done during your life were not wrong at the time Jesus died, but are now "okay"? Did Jesus die for these sins? Did Jesus' death on the cross account for your hypothetical subjective moral standards? I do not believe Jesus' death paid for an of my sins. I will still get judged. Morality is a human construct and yes it changes and evolves. It is those human constructs that we live by.
sac51495 writes: 2. - The Bible itself denies changing standards: "My son, fear the LORD and the king; Do not associate with those given to change;" (Prov. 24:21). Although this verse is not specifically pointed towards morals, it certainly has nothing good to say about "change". Nonsense. The Bible is filled as expected with many contradictory passages. Jesus himself is said to have changed things. Genesis 18 includes an example of man challenging and changing God's morality standards.
quote: sac51495 writes: 3. - You also make morality out to be a standard that is outside of God, that God must measure up to. But God and "morality" are one and the same thing: "So Jesus said to him, Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God." (Mark 10:18). God is good, and none of us are. Good is defined by God's very nature. Does God's nature change? "For I am the LORD, I do not change; Therefore you are not consumed, O sons of Jacob." (Mal. 3:6). Thus we conclude that standards of morality are unchanging. See above. In addition there are examples all through the Bible stories of God changing. Have you ever read the Flood Myths?
quote: sac51495 writes: The "great" gift?... Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but it seems as though you are making the fall out to be a blessing to mankind...but, of course, there is the distinct possibility that I am misunderstanding you. No, you do not misunderstand me. I can find no Biblical support for the concept of a Fall.
sac51495 writes: 7. - From your standpoint that there are many contradictions in the Bible, and that a quote can be taken to mean anything out of context, we must ask the question: why do you have any confidence that the anecdote of Abraham is true? Or that the anecdote of Adam and Eve is true? How can you be absolutely, positively sure than any particular verse in the Bible is true? What about the one at the beginning, that says, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."? Is it true? What about the verses that give us our means of hope through Jesus Christ?...Do you ascribe to any of these views? If so, how do you know that they are true? I don't know that any of those are true. I may hope or believe they are true, but that is all it can ever be as long as I live. Many, such as the fables though can be learning and teaching lessons even if not true.
sac51495 writes: I would be interested to find out who it was that called us to do this, because it wasn't God. quote: Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||
Nij Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 239 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Assuming somebody is wrong because they can't or don't answer your argument is the 'argument from silence'. Assuming that something is wrong because you can't understand may be a form of the 'argument from ignorance', although Phage did offer the choices of "cognitive dissonance" and simple outright "denial" too.
Just because you can't answer doesn't mean they're right. For example, a creationist might argue about geology from before The Fludde, when you're a marine biologist debating him on evolution in cetacea. Completely offtopic and something you have no idea about, and in any case it's a rabbit hole. So you would reasonably enough just ignore it, and attempt to continue a discussion about evolution in cetacea. The creo would of course take that to mean you acknowledge The Fludde happened and that therefore the Bible is right and that therefore evolution isn't true, but hey, that's another story.
|
|||||||||||||||||
AdminPD Inactive Administrator |
Since this topic has strayed from its course and interest in the topic seems to have waned, I'm closing this thread.
Thanks for participating.AdminPD |
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024