Fishy argumentation

[Prodigal_Son]

In my few months on this forum, I have seen far too much simpletonism. This is a word I coined, meaning roughly: the belief that all possible information proves your point. Nothing is that simple. To every point, there is a counterpoint – and sometimes your “opponent” makes a valid point.

When your opponent makes a valid point, you should:

• Acknowledge the point, even compliment them.
• If it is not crucial to the argument, explain why it is not crucial.
• If it is crucial to the argument, either a) try to defeat their point, or b) admit that you have no better argument.

The fact that you have no better argument does not necessarily make your “opponent” right. The truth is not affected by our opinions about the truth.

When your opponent makes a valid point, you should not:

• Change the subject, without acknowledging what they said.
• Display your own ignorance, by pretending their point was trivial and/or mocking them
• Ignore the fact that another person spoke, and keep spouting off your own monologic viewpoints (I just made up the word “monologic” as well).

The goal of philosophic conversation is wisdom and enjoyment. When we fail to “be on our best behavior”, we cause other people stress and annoyance.

(And Christians: remember Paul’s admonition that we are to be “the aroma of Christ” to unbelievers. Have you marinated in the Word lately?)

 

[liquidpele]

(And Christians: remember Paul’s admonition that we are to be “the aroma of Christ” to unbelievers. Have you marinated in the Word lately?)

So that’s why you guys like eating the body of Christ.

Seriously though, good points.

 

[Spock]

Very good points! And they apply to both sides. It would be just as intellectually dishonest for an atheist to pretend that the other party said nothing of significance as it would be for the theist. It might be interesting to review a few threads and decide which party is “more” guilty. But it would be a waste of time…

 

[James_S_Saint]

They should make a book in the Bible for that.

 

[liquidpele]

They should make a book in the Bible for that.

Haha… and then at some point the “not” in the second part would get accidentally dropped in a translation and people would make up elaborate explanations for why the two parts don’t conflict.

 

[James_S_Saint]

Haha… and then at some point the “not” in the second part would get accidentally dropped in a translation and people would make up elaborate explanations for why the two parts don’t conflict.

Well, if people actually got along, fear of the dryness and dullness of life would necessitate confounding rationale so as to promote conflict and change (sound familiar?).

 

[MindOverMatter]

Very good points! And they apply to both sides. It would be just as intellectually dishonest for an atheist to pretend that the other party said nothing of significance as it would be for the theist. It might be interesting to review a few threads and decide which party is “more” guilty. But it would be a waste of time…

Especially if one tries to show that the atheists are more guilty. Could they really ever admit that?

 

[Langdell]

… When your opponent makes a valid point, you should:

• Acknowledge the point, even compliment them.
• If it is not crucial to the argument, explain why it is not crucial.
• If it is crucial to the argument, either a) try to defeat their point, or b) admit that you have no better argument.

Good advice! And if we find ourselves unable to do any of the above, then we should just silently leave the thread for as long as it takes to cool down.
.

 

[edwest2]

Good advice. Yet some dissidents come here to purposely stir the pot. The goals are change and engineering consent.

I urge my brothers and sisters in Christ to present the truth always and to know the truth. Too many threads are revived again and again and again. The masturbation thread is one that keeps reappearing. Sometimes it’s obvious that the poster is hoping for a different answer or hoping that someone will come up with a loophole that will make it OK. Just be consistent.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Spock]

Especially if one tries to show that the atheists are more guilty. Could they really ever admit that?

I would, if you could show it… but I doubt it. Would you?

 

[liquidpele]

I would, if you could show it… but I doubt it. Would you?

It depends on the forum though. I’d expect more Catholics here, and thus probably more bad arguments from their side just because they have more volume. Try going to pharyngula and arguing with atheists, you’ll likely find immaturity and poor arguments more than you would find here.

 

[Spock]

It depends on the forum though. I’d expect more Catholics here, and thus probably more bad arguments from their side just because they have more volume. Try going to pharyngula and arguing with atheists, you’ll likely find immaturity and poor arguments more than you would find here.

I am sure. Neither side has “first dibs” on either virtue or stupidiy.

 

[Langdell]

… The masturbation thread is one that keeps reappearing. Sometimes it’s obvious that the poster is hoping for a different answer or hoping that someone will come up with a loophole that will make it OK. …

Maybe every 3 or 4 years the Pope should issue an encyclical entitled, “Yes, These Things Are Still Sins.”
.

 

[James_S_Saint]

I would, if you could show it… but I doubt it. Would you?

I visit both sides of the fence quite often and I see both displaying non-sense in place of reason. On one Christian site a few years back, the Atheists gathered into a campaign against the Christians refusing to use reasoning.

I aptly and seriously proved before both Christian and Atheist (even to their own realization) that the Atheist, in general cannot actually reason well, so why would he want Christians to do something that he couldn’t handle?

I admitted, intentionally, that the Christians all too often fail miserably at logic as well, but there in-lies the very issue at heart. I seldom argued against the Christian simply because he already states that he is a follower in Faith, not logic.

Thus any complaint of a Christian not using logic well, is a bit out of place. He doesn’t claim that logic is his guide, but faith. What is there to argue other than the Atheist wanting him to not do that and join in with effort to argue with logic that he, himself, cannot handle well.

Of course, I couldn’t help but chastise those Christians a bit for trying to defend with weapons that were not of their faith. And then chastised the Atheists for picking on the Sheep rather than taking on their Shepard (who can quite readily use logic in defense).

The Atheists depend on the sheep not having a Shepard at hand, making them, of course, “wolves”.

 

[Betterave]

Very good point: in the words of St. Ambrose of Milan, “it is not by dialectic that we are saved,” or St. Paul, “the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing… ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise’… God has made the wisdom of the world into foolishness… for the world, with its wisdom, has failed to know God through the wisdom of God” (1Cor1).

Nonetheless, this is a philosophy forum, so here at least Christians must recognize they are fair dialectical game!

“fides quarens intellectum”
(faith seeking understanding)

 

[MindOverMatter]

I would, if you could show it… but I doubt it. Would you?

The problem is that very good arguments have been shown thousands of times using logic, and the defense of the atheist always amounts to the same thing…

“I am not going to believe in God if he can’t be empirically verified!!!”

So much for logic not being on the side of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The problem is that very good arguments have been shown thousands of times using logic, and the defense of the atheist always amounts to the same thing…

“I am not going to believe in God if he can’t be empirically verified!!!”

So much for logic not being on the side of God.

The original point you were responding to here was when Spock said:

It would be just as intellectually dishonest for an atheist to pretend that the other party said nothing of significance as it would be for the theist. It might be interesting to review a few threads and decide which party is “more” guilty.

You implied that no atheist would ever admit that his tactics were uncharitable or unfair. This is not the case – I have seen atheists here admit to being harsh or unreasonable. Spock said that he would admit if he were guilty, and asked if you would.

I don’t understand your response, MOM. The answer, “I would admit if I were being unfair, too” would have sufficed.

 

[MindOverMatter]

T

I don’t understand your response, MOM. The answer, “I would admit if I were being unfair, too” would have sufficed.

I was not aware that the discussion was centered on politeness and charity; of coarse i admit that i can be very uncharitable at times. I understand your concern, but the fact of the matter is that given my experience of debating Spock, i don’t think that Spock or any of the other atheists on this forum are being honest about the evidence for Gods existence. They would probably say the same about me.

 

[Betterave]

I was not aware that the discussion was centered on politeness and charity; of coarse i admit that i can be very uncharitable at times. I understand your concern, but the fact of the matter is that given my experience of debating Spock, i don’t think that Spock or any of the other atheists on this forum are being honest about the evidence for Gods existence. They would probably say the same about me.

I guess if you both have the same complaints about each other, maybe you’re both right? Charity aside, generalizations about the vices of someone’s arguments are argumentatively unproductive even if they happen to be true. Ad hominems are generally just totally inappropriate. Focus on the claims, not the stubbornness of the person making the claims, then maybe the stubbornness on both sides will turn out to be a less central feature of what gets said.

 

[Spock]

I was not aware that the discussion was centered on politeness and charity; of coarse i admit that i can be very uncharitable at times. I understand your concern, but the fact of the matter is that given my experience of debating Spock, i don’t think that Spock or any of the other atheists on this forum are being honest about the evidence for Gods existence. They would probably say the same about me.

But it was not about politeness, it was about intellectual honesty, to admit that your argument was deficient.

Now to respond your assertion, namely that logical arguments were presented thousands of times, and the stubborn atheists just close their ears, and demand physical proof. I do not want this thread to be derailed, so I will not use any “atheist-type” argument, rather I will invoke a fully Catholic argument. Here comes: “if God’s existence could be shown **conclusively **by using logical arguments, then faith would not be necessary. And since faith is more important than logic, all the logical arguments **must **be deficient”.

Now, let’s drop this subject, since this is not the topic for the thread. I am going to introduce the Prodigal Son Doctrine (PSD for short). When someone is confronted by an argument they cannot handle, it will be a violation of the PSD:

1. to change the subject without admitting the lack of response
2. attacking the other party’s arguments without presenting yours.

In the consecutive threads I will point out the violation of the PSD, when I see it. I urge you to do the same - even if the “guilty party” is on your side of the “fence”.