On 5-7-2009 12:24, Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>>> It's completely full of fallacious argumentation,
> 
>> Why don't you point them out?
> 
>   Done that a long time ago:
> 
> http://warp.povusers.org/OpenLetters/ResponseTo10Questions.html

How was I supposed to know that?

>> I think it is horrible, very American, and 
>> assuming a type of religion that is not very common among European 
>> intellectuals, but that does not make the arguments false.
> 
>   My point is not really whether what they are *trying* to say is, in the
> end, true or false (because that's the whole question in atheism and
> religion). My point is that the *way* they are saying it is wrong because
> they present a bunch of fallacious distorted arguments and outright straw
> men, and then present questions and conclusions based directly on them.
> I think the term for this is petitio principii: Start from a fallacious
> statement and then formulate a question assuming the statement is valid.
> 
>   The people who made the video are trying to be clever, and to many people
> (especially fellow atheists) they do it rather convincingly, but they are
> still basing their arguments on fallacies and straw men.
> 
>> Then follow a few things about selective usage of verses. Again if you 
>> don't claim that everything in the bible is the Truth that won't make 
>> any sense.
> 
>   I wouldn't use the words "some christians don't claim that everything in
> the bible is the Truth" because that sounds like they believed that some
> parts of it are false. (Ok, there certainly *are* some people who call
> themselves christians *and* believe there are outright falsities in the
> bible, but I'm not referring to those.)
> 
>   Some christians understand that the bible uses a lot of metaphors and
> similes, but they believe that the *message* these metaphors and similes
> are expressing is true. Of course you have to understand that it *is* a
> metaphor, and what it is trying to say. (Naturally different people may
> have different interpretations, which is why we have a myriad of different
> churches, branches, sects and whatnot.)
> 
>   Some christians take some metaphors too literally and they are way too
> dogmatic about them. Some of them are so fanatic that it seems like they
> thought that anyone who didn't interpret these parts literally is claiming
> the bible contains lies. Ironically, they are themselves most probably
> misinterpreting and distorting the bible by obscuring the true message
> these metaphors are trying to convey and replacing it with their own
> interpretations.

Ok, so you are from the metaphor interpretation side of the church. That 
is good to know. ;)
I agree with you on that point, but I disagree that that is the common, 
the best, or the only sensible interpretation and I think the above and 
your ResponseTo10Questions at least suggest that.

I am afraid that there is a large group of Christians that claim the 
bible is the Truth and that e.g. the earth was indeed created in 6 days. 
Where 'day' has the conventional meaning of 24 hours. Many also claim 
that woman is inferior to man because of Genesis 2:21-22 (and won't 
answer to questions about Genesis 1:27-29). The literal truth of the 
bible also plays a vital role in the evolution debate.

Under your interpretation (that the bible contains metaphors and that it 
is the underlying message that is important) the assumptions made in the 
video are wrong. But does that mean that the arguments are absolutely 
wrong or that the maker used 'Christians' where he should have used a 
much more elaborate definition to make sure you were not included but 
the ones he meets everyday were? How fruitful is it to argue that any 
general statement about Christians, Buddhists, atheists, men, women, 
etc. is wrong because there are always exceptions? That would imply that 
you can not even say that Christians, Jews, and Muslims believe in one 
God because I know a few that don't. Ok, we could argue that this is so 
fundamental to e.g. Christianity that they can not be called Christians 
anymore, but that's a slippery slope. Who is going to decide what is 
fundamental?

Or perhaps your point is simply that we shouldn't make any general 
statement about groups at all because everybody is unique. I can agree 
with that, although I fear that there are even exceptions to that.

Post a reply to this message