On Mon, 08 Jun 2009 18:12:09 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Wasn't intentional. But, sometimes you just have to state facts, and
> sadly, in this case, the facts, much as with the case of Poe's Law, tend
> to reflect a similar sentiment to what the other side employs as a
> tactic. 

A fair point.  I was just surprised at the source - had to double check 
to see if it was in fact you. :-)

> Example, just because someone else says you are "like" a
> murderer, and references a known one, it doesn't follow that, since its
> a fallacy to make the argument, its also a fallacy to claim that the
> known murderer was a murderer.

?  The known murderer *was* a murderer.  I don't follow here.

> It may not be nice. But the truth is, there are common psychological
> traits to people that believe in supernatural explanations, and one of
> them is a refusal to see anything that doesn't support their own
> position, or to interpret some aspect of what "is" said, as supporting
> them, even when it doesn't. e.g. trying to claim that the existence of
> love isn't "explained" without god, and therefor god -> love -> Good.

Well, I wouldn't say all people who believe in a God (NB difference from 
"supernatural explanations") refuse to see things that don't support that 
position.  There are quite a few people in the scientific community who 
believe in "god(s)" and who acknowledge that there is a bit of a strange 
dichotomy there.  They generally rationalize this by saying that what 
they believe in is that there is more to the universe than we know, and 
that there may well be something (or indeed someone) there that (who) has 
a bigger view.

> Doesn't matter what argument you might try to derail that, everything
> you come up with will be "reinterpreted" to fit the original premise
> anyway.

Now that I have seen, time and again.

Jim

Post a reply to this message