the thread where annoyed kevin responds to silly criticisms

[kevin]

here's the thread where kevin responds to silly criticisms from people who don't reason clearly. it is especially for people who trot out the same old bogus arguments and sniping comments over and over, to the point where kevin is tired of addressing them.

in the future, kevin will simply link people to the boilerplate response to their silliness here, and save himself a lot of trouble.

ciao

[kevin]

Argumentum ad populum, or, everybody's doin' it, doin' it, doin' it . . .

Briefly:

Most people believe that a claim, X, is true.
Therefore X is true.
This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the fact that many people believe a claim does not, in general, serve as evidence that the claim is true.

in the following example, the number of people who believe in a phenomenom is considered evidence for its truth, and the more people who believe, the truer it must therefore be.

Yeah. Right. It isn't going to happen. If your little sect had that direct line to God that you claim, you wouldn't have fractured into ... how many branches is it?

little sect: maggie, ever heard of the hindus? there's a billion of them that think you're wrong. if big numbers are what makes truth true, then the hindus are just as correct as a billion roman catholics. i don't think that works.

by the way, have you ever read this line?

Mat 7:13  Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14  Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

scripture says big numbers can mean big errors. perhaps a billion roman catholics are being told to walk past that strait gate and slip in over the wall. no way to tell, just by the numbers.

[energy]

Can others remark?

[kevin]

energy, please feel free to comment. if you disagree with me, i encourage you to comment.

i am always interested in learning better from people who don't substitute rhetoric for reason and logic.

did i ever mention to you the low esteem in which i hold rhetoric?

rhetoric is the art of persuading people to ignore logic.

[kevin]

Argumentum ad "you schismed, so that proves i'm right,"

or, "gosh, i guess i've just lost all my history books, hmmm?"

the fallacy here is first, selective amnesia regarding religious history, in which one group is asserted to have divided while another hasn't, and second, the unsupported assumption that truth is correlated to strict and exclusive religious orthodoxy.

Yeah. Right. It isn't going to happen. If your little sect had that direct line to God that you claim, you wouldn't have fractured into ... how many branches is it?

how many branches is it? dunno. luckily for me, there's still hope:

Joh 14:1  Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.
Joh 14:2  In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

i wonder how many branches the roman catholic church has fragmented into since it was founded in 525 AD at the first ecumenical council in nicaea? well, let's see. there have been quite a few. I listed some of them recently: the manicheans, the cathars, the nestorians, the apolloarianists, the pelagians, the donatists, the arians, and so on. if you want to argue that the roman catholic church is older than constantine, which is nonsense, in my opinion, then you can include the gnostics, the docets, and the sabellians as well. but these were little schisms . . .

so let?s not forget the orthodox schism of 1054 and the protestant reformation, both of which cut the roman church into bigger pieces.

roman catholicism as it stands today has been made homogeneous mostly by what has left it behind, rather than by what it has itself come up with.

but that's not a criticism of a belief system that i take seriously in my own faith tradition, so i'm willing to let the catholics slide.

[energy]

Thanks kevin.

I just had to remark on the arrogance of people thinking that only THEY must be right, and according to THEIR collection of writings, god only follows THEIR rules.

How can they claim to know god, and say that he has no free will to accept whoever he wishes.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

 

It only took 1700 years and even with that much lead time the best God could do was find a small group to pick and choose what they like from the Scriptures-- and reject the authority of anything but their guts. Renaming your gut, by the way, Holy Spirit is a nice trick but doesn't fool very many people. You wouldn't know squat about the Holy Spirit were it not for Scripture. While picking and choosing from it is a well-known phenomenon, the tenacity with which you defend the practice is quite ...  amazing. Why is scripture right about the Holy Spirit and about nothing else that it commands?

Thanks kevin.

I just had to remark on the arrogance of people thinking that only THEY must be right, and according to THEIR collection of writings, god only follows THEIR rules.

How can they claim to know god, and say that he has no free will to accept whoever he wishes.

^ Fail. They don't say anything of the sort and never have. Pay attention.

THEIR  collection of writings is supposed to be KEVIN'S collection of writings. So try again.

[nateswift]

Could you add a little about the bullwhip that so often comes up indicating that the Roman sect was unopposed until very recently?

[kevin]

It only took 1700 years and even with that much lead time the best God could do was find a small group to pick and choose what they like from the Scriptures-- and reject the authority of anything but their guts. Renaming your gut, by the way, Holy Spirit is a nice trick but doesn't fool very many people. You wouldn't know squat about the Holy Spirit were it not for Scripture. While picking and choosing from it is a well-known phenomenon, the tenacity with which you defend the practice is quite ...  amazing. Why is scripture right about the Holy Spirit and about nothing else that it commands?

Thanks kevin.

I just had to remark on the arrogance of people thinking that only THEY must be right, and according to THEIR collection of writings, god only follows THEIR rules.

How can they claim to know god, and say that he has no free will to accept whoever he wishes.

^ Fail. They don't say anything of the sort and never have. Pay attention.

THEIR  collection of writings is supposed to be KEVIN'S collection of writings. So try again.

you know, maggie, i once walked all day with a strange lump in the toe of my boot. too busy to look, but i finally took it off in the evening.

there was a dead mouse in the toe of my boot.

can you imagine such a thing? all day, too.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

I'd say that story sums you up rather well. I would also like to say that I don't care but that would be rude. I have more than once told you to depart in peace. You have pushed this thing because you are hell-bent on proving that you are the one real Christian here. Have fun with that. I don't feel nearly so defensive. I am glad that you do. Maybe you will rethink your Frank Sinatra approach to God.

[Kiahanie]

Looks to me like there are a lot of different people here trying to prove their ways are the Only Way. Kevin seems to be one of the least insistent, obnoxious and authoritarian of the bunch.

[JustMyron]

Hm.

Maybe a "Standard responses to common questions" thread wouldn't be a bad idea...

Q: Do atheists hate God?
A: No.

Q: Do Catholics think sex is dirty and shameful?
A: No.

And so on... but with more explanation.

[Ratman]

I have a silly criticism, grow a mustache with that beard. 

[kevin]

Hm.

Maybe a "Standard responses to common questions" thread wouldn't be a bad idea...

Q: Do atheists hate God?
A: No.

Q: Do Catholics think sex is dirty and shameful?
A: No.

And so on... but with more explanation.

you know what? i hadn't thought about it, but it might be worthwhile to consider a new board with a FAQ section in it. currently we have the stuff from the menu on the forum home page (not the index page):

http://isgodimaginary.com/christianity.html

this material could go there, with some updates and corrections. the christianity section doesn't cover the jehovah's witnesses, for example.

[Rox]

 

[davdi]

This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys. 

energy: that has been my impression of many of my fellow believers for over 40 years.  +

Kevin and mags have a smallish platform on which to fight, but i'm neutral because the Eastern Church is the true church 

Ah, but Mags gets a boost from the Eastern Church because they think we are her weak sister.

You're right, Kevin, that Hindu's are splintered, all roads lead to god.

[Maggie the Opinionated]

You think a spiteful thread aimed at a member who rejects the Quaker rewrite of Christianity fun? You think it is appropriate for a moderator to do so? I suppose it could be fun, if I cared to play along but I don't. No amount of vitriol aimed at me can change the facts of Christianity. No amount of huffing and puffing on his part can hide the fact that I have repeatedly implored him from early on to agree to disagree and not get into these differences on an atheist forum. I have done this in public and in private. But he will not have it. Well, he has his reward. He got to tell us another anecdote about his personal hygiene. Big whoop.

[kevin]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam,

or, jesus never said a word about it, therefore he must have agreed with me.

This fallacy is committed whenever it is argued that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false, or that it is false because it has not been proved true.

for example:

Why separate Jesus' gospel from the man himself? He often spoke positively of Jewish scriptures. He even said it was those scriptures that gave testimony about him. Not once did he care to address whether or not any part of scripture was erroneous. It is therefore likely that Jesus accepted that Yahweh did indeed command the Israelites to slay many peoples, and approved of it.

Joh 21:25  And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.

i am under the impression that not all that jesus said or did has been recorded.

if the fact that jesus had nothing to say on a subject means that jesus approves of it, then jesus must also approve of cherrios for breakfast, because he surely had nothing to say about that either.

[nateswift]

You think a spiteful thread aimed at a member who rejects the Quaker rewrite of Christianity fun? You think it is appropriate for a moderator to do so? I suppose it could be fun, if I cared to play along but I don't. No amount of vitriol aimed at me can change the facts of Christianity. No amount of huffing and puffing on his part can hide the fact that I have repeatedly implored him from early on to agree to disagree and not get into these differences on an atheist forum. I have done this in public and in private. But he will not have it. Well, he has his reward. He got to tell us another anecdote about his personal hygiene. Big whoop.

Maggie, try reading again.... oh wait, you DO seem to have rouble with that don't you?  Well, the POINT of the thread it a response to YOUR ridiculous vitriol.  Stop THAT and there's no thread.

[Airyaman]

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, or, nobody can disprove atheism, therefore therefore it must be true.

Why separate Jesus' gospel from the man himself? He often spoke positively of Jewish scriptures. He even said it was those scriptures that gave testimony about him. Not once did he care to address whether or not any part of scripture was erroneous. It is therefore likely that Jesus accepted that Yahweh did indeed command the Israelites to slay many peoples, and approved of it.

Ever heard the Kenny Rogers' song, Gambler? Maybe you should give it a listen  .

[Ratman]

[Airyaman]

^^ Composer!!

[kevin]

I have a silly criticism, grow a mustache with that beard. 

it gets messed up with my dinner.

i don't need any more flavr-savrs

[kevin]

Appeal to Ridicule, or, the Horse Laugh

The Appeal to Ridicule is a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an "argument." This line of "reasoning" has the following form:

X, which is some form of ridicule is presented (typically directed at the claim).
Therefore claim C is false.

for example:

. . .That rejoinder might be more appropriately aimed at those Christians who see scripture as equally valid and binding for all times, who see the Bible as expressing the consistent and invariable nature of God.

OOOOO! That's me!! That's me! I own it. Yes, indeed I do.

  Support from an unexpected place indeed! Yes, when anyone finds something in scripture he doesn't like, he goes off and founds a "religion" made in his own image. Inevitably, he will find a few followers. And they will call themselves Christians. Doesn't make it so, thankfully. On the other hand, if all I have to do is assert it, well then, I am the Queen of Egypt. It is time for them to throw that bum Mubarek (or however that is spelled) out and get with the times.

Me.

[Pastafarian]

Looks to me like there are a lot of different people here trying to prove their ways are the Only Way. Kevin seems to be one of the least insistent, obnoxious and authoritarian of the bunch.

That's an understatement. About Kevin.
I'm tired of being sucked into the nastiness around the threads Maggie posts in so I'll not draw attention to the words "obnoxious" "authoritarian" ... Oops.

[kevin]

Composition Fallacy Type 2  or, Just because it's something doesn't mean it's everything.

--subtitle courtesy of jubal digriz

The second type of fallacy of Composition is committed when it is concluded that what is true of the parts of a whole must be true of the whole without there being adequate justification for the claim. More formally, the line of "reasoning" would be as follows:

The parts of the whole X have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore the whole X must have characteristics A, B, C.

That this sort of reasoning is fallacious because it cannot be inferred that simply because the parts of a complex whole have (or lack) certain properties that the whole that they are parts of has those properties. This is especially clear in math: The numbers 1 and 3 are both odd. 1 and 3 are parts of 4. Therefore, the number 4 is odd.

perhaps homosexuality is a non-adaptive byproduct of a more general (and adaptive) characteristic exhibited by males to have sex with anything that will hold still long enough.

In order to utterly destroy that idea, I need only mention the large number of lesbians in committed relationships.

you don't destroy it at all, argyle, but you provide a useful example of composition fallacy.

what you do correctly point out is that it can't be the entire answer for the very complex behavior that we call "homosexuality."

might be inductive generalization instead? i think they're related, really. and in fairness to argyle, i should have specified that i was only talking about male homosexuality.

[davdi]

But you're a Bubba, Kevin, you know, South Ohio.  Sheesh.  Bubba knows nothing, and all this is crap. 

(Intended to be a silly criticism,   )

[kevin]

i'm not really in south ohio, although everybody tells me i am.

if i move five miles north, suddenly i'm in north ohio. if i was fifteen miles east, i'd be in west virginia.

but i would have to swim like the bears do to do it

[davdi]

On The Road Again!!

See you next time you get routed on 40 or 30, i hope.

[kevin]

next time i won't even try to park at that nightmare truck stop in east little rock. that place makes me say bad words whenever they send me there.

battle creek michigan is just as bad. i did a trucker no-no there yesterday wiggling through a swarm of semi-trucks waiting for fuel when all i needed to do was park. turned out one of them was waiting to park too, and then he had to wait for me as well.

he chewed my butt out over the radio for all to hear