Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Well, using logical scientific arguments to talk about religion DOESN'T 
> WORK.

  So that means that even if someone wants to explain in a completely
rational fashion some detail of the Bible, it's a perfectly valid form
of counter-argumentation to throw back irrational straw men?

  "Science", in a broad term, is not always about hard science, about the
mechanics of the universe. Science can also refer to the study of sociology,
culture, psychology, philosophy and logic. Something can be argumented
logically even if it doesn't necessarily refer to an actual physical
phenomenon.

  You are simply arguing for the sake of arguing. You don't even want to
have a rational conversation about different points of view. You just want
to be right, and you will not concede anything. You have decided that your
arguments are the only valid arguments, you don't want to listen nor
understand what the other is trying to say, except to see how you could
come up with yet another counter-argument. That's not listening.

  It's not always the religious people who make rational conversation
impossible.

> They tried that. talk.origins, for example. Yet the ID people keep 
> on trying, right?

  That's a perfect example of a straw man in this context. You are trying
to make my arguments (and my point that some of these Bible things can be
approached in a rational basis) look more ridiculous by comparing them to
something extreme.

> I mean, how the heck does Joel know what God is thinking better than I 
> do?

  Yes. Show your righteous indignation. You must be right, who has the
right to even claim that you might be wrong?

  Listening to other people is very, very hard sometimes.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message