Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 6:32 AM
23 online now:
Percy (Admin), vimesey (2 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,631 Year: 3,668/19,786 Month: 663/1,087 Week: 32/221 Day: 3/29 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3435363738
39
Author Topic:   Underlying Philosophy
Tram law
Member (Idle past 2784 days)
Posts: 283
From: Weed, California, USA
Joined: 08-15-2010


Message 571 of 577 (576069)
08-22-2010 5:49 PM


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.)


Replies to this message:
 Message 572 by Phage0070, posted 08-23-2010 5:06 PM Tram law has not yet responded
 Message 576 by Nij, posted 08-26-2010 4:57 AM Tram law has not yet responded

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 572 of 577 (576307)
08-23-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 571 by Tram law
08-22-2010 5:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Tram law, posted 08-22-2010 5:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

sac51495
Member (Idle past 2798 days)
Posts: 176
From: Atlanta, GA, United States
Joined: 04-02-2010


Message 573 of 577 (576387)
08-23-2010 10:36 PM


.
Replies to this message:
 Message 574 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-24-2010 12:14 AM sac51495 has not yet responded

Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16086
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 574 of 577 (576401)
08-24-2010 12:14 AM
Reply to: Message 573 by sac51495
08-23-2010 10:36 PM


.

That was very Zen.

I think I just achieved satori.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 573 by sac51495, posted 08-23-2010 10:36 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 30934
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 575 of 577 (576508)
08-24-2010 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 558 by sac51495
08-06-2010 9:57 PM


Mortality, change and meaning.
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:
23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?

24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?

25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?

26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.

27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes:

28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.

29And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.

30And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.

31And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.

32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.


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:
5And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

6And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

7And the LORD said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.


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:
22And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
This message is a reply to:
 Message 558 by sac51495, posted 08-06-2010 9:57 PM sac51495 has not yet responded

Nij
Member (Idle past 2969 days)
Posts: 239
From: New Zealand
Joined: 08-20-2010


Message 576 of 577 (576854)
08-26-2010 4:57 AM
Reply to: Message 571 by Tram law
08-22-2010 5:49 PM


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 571 by Tram law, posted 08-22-2010 5:49 PM Tram law has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 577 of 577 (576861)
08-26-2010 5:22 AM


Time to Close
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


RewPrev1
...
3435363738
39
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019