Have you ever tried to debate Christians that have no clue?

[tackattack]

(21st June 2011 05:40)MilesTailsPrower Wrote:  I think it's safe to say it's impossible to talk to a christian with a "clue".

I have the game clue does that invalidate your argument?


@Anymouse- Person X believes christians don't have a clue
It can be demonstrated that I claim to be a Christian and have a clue
Person X is false in his assertion about all Christians

Could you show me how that is illogical (not false.. I'm aware it's confusing definiitions... it's intentional)

[Anymouse]

(21st June 2011 10:42)tackattack Wrote:  @Anymouse- Person X believes christians don't have a clue
It can be demonstrated that I claim to be a Christian and have a clue
Person X is false in his assertion about all Christians

Could you show me how that is illogical (not false.. I'm aware it's confusing definiitions... it's intentional)

This would be the fallacy of incomplete comparison, that is, not enough information is provided. have a clue is undefined.

It is also an example of the Spotlight fallacy: when a person uncritically assumes that all members or cases of a certain class or type are like those that receive the most attention or coverage in the media. (I call this the Wingnut fallacy and they don't necessarily need to be in the media. Some Christians are Wingnuts, and don't have a clue, therefore all Christians must be Wingnuts. The fallacy is easy to see if you substitute another class in the sentence: Some atheists don't have a clue, some Canadians don't have a clue, some Tea Partiers don't have a clue - actually the last is an untrue statement as I believe no Tea Partiers have a clue.)

And it is also a version of the ad hominen attack known as poisoning the well: presenting adverse information about a subject to discredit the holder of a position.

The first sentence is also an example of Association fallacy (guilt by association): arguing that because two things share a property they are the same.

The best way to debunk a fallacious statement is to present evidence which disproves the position. In the case of "All crows are black," one only need present one crow which is not black. In the case of "Christians don't have a clue," after defining what "have a clue" actually means, present one who does.

Could be more, those are the first fallacies that come to mind.
James.

[MilesTailsPrower]

(21st June 2011 10:42)tackattack Wrote:  

(21st June 2011 05:40)MilesTailsPrower Wrote:  I think it's safe to say it's impossible to talk to a christian with a "clue".

I have the game clue does that invalidate your argument?


@Anymouse- Person X believes christians don't have a clue
It can be demonstrated that I claim to be a Christian and have a clue
Person X is false in his assertion about all Christians

Could you show me how that is illogical (not false.. I'm aware it's confusing definiitions... it's intentional)

I don't believe that invalidates my argument, that's like saying "wait for me" and you responding "My weight is 160"
Does that invalidate your argument?

[tackattack]

@MilesTailsPrower- As you can see where anymouse pointed out about poisoning the well, you made a false assertion and sweeping generalization, unless you can define clue and prove that there are no Christians that can have that... just a fun way for me to point it out

@Anymouse- You did a wonderful job of picking out the fallacies, they are all intentional... however you did not disprove the logical correctness of the statements I made. So while false they were also logical... get my point and how it relates to what you said?

[Anymouse]

(22nd June 2011 07:53)tackattack Wrote:  @Anymouse- You did a wonderful job of picking out the fallacies, they are all intentional... however you did not disprove the logical correctness of the statements I made. So while false they were also logical... get my point and how it relates to what you said?

Actually, the way that works is they are not logical because they are either unsupported or false. But I am not a philosopher or debater, I just edit Romance novels.

[MilesTailsPrower]

@MilesTailsPrower- As you can see I where anymouse pointed out about poisoning the well you made a false assertion and sweeping generalization, unless you can define clue and prove that there are no Christians that can have that... just a fun way for me to point it out.

As you can see I where anymous? <------ Bad grammar?

And if you take the definition of faith which is: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. To have a clue you have to have some proof. And religion is "faith".

So if I talk to a religious person, they don't have a clue.

Just a fun way for me to point it out.

[Anymouse]

(22nd June 2011 08:40)MilesTailsPrower Wrote:  @MilesTailsPrower- As you can see I where anymouse pointed out about poisoning the well you made a false assertion and sweeping generalization, unless you can define clue and prove that there are no Christians that can have that... just a fun way for me to point it out.

As you can see I where anymous? <------ Bad grammar?

And if you take the definition of faith which is: Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof. To have a clue you have to have some proof. And religion is "faith".

So if I talk to a religious person, they don't have a clue.

Just a fun way for me to point it out.

Still an undefined claim. Don't have a clue about what? Religion? Science? Economics? Gardening?
Fred is an auto mechanic, who attends a So. Baptist church. Fred tells you your car needs a transmission overhaul, you respond with "You're a Christian, you don't have a clue." Non-sequiteur.

[tackattack]

@MilesTailsPrower - yes it was an extra word. I've corrected it. Religion is not Faith, faith is faith and religion is religion. I don't define faith the way you do, nor apparently do I define clue as you do. Let me help you. Are you saying that all religion (specifically Christianity) is not based on material proof, and you define "having a clue" as having material proof for something , that anyone who accepts the tern Christian thus has no clue?

@Anymouse- You can have a false premise (or a fallacy) but apply correct logic. An example would be: P1: Most American cats are domestic house cats. P2: Bill is an American cat. Conclusion: Bill is domestic house cat. For an arguement to be true it should be both logical and valid. In this case it is logical but not valid in every case due to the inductive fallacy. It is however logically sound. That was my only real point.

[MilesTailsPrower]

(3rd June 2011 07:12)Dean-o Wrote:  And when I say no clue, I mean no fucking clue.

Let me give you a few examples from a debate (if you could actually call it that) I had tonight.

Here are some quotes from one Christian:

Quote:god created 2 sets of humans, first were the partial humanoids, that were both male and female

what i am saying is there was monkey men, then adam and eve

the blood from the shroud of turin is AB negative

Adam was the first angel hybrid

wasn't there somewhere in the bible that God told Adam to take a look at the animals for a mate and he like said no way, so Eve was created

Animals must have been more evolved by that time, to mate with Adam

By the way, Every single line was a single post by that specific Christian. She was just so confused by a simple discussion on Macro-evolution and abiogenesis that she just went off on a random tangent that confused everyone else. It got to the point that even other creationists were ignoring her posts.

Here's a quote from another Christian in that debate:

Quote:Did any of Lenski's E coli bacteria evolve into a different species, say - a fruit fly?

This one had enormous trouble understanding that the history of evolution from a single organism to humanity took a very long time. Not just 20 years.

Defining a clue as in his argument, is i think bringing up a subject of evolution from a single organism to humanity; which a particular person didn't have a clue about.
So the clue in the post is about bringing up an argument that someone didn't have a "clue" about.
So my response: I think it's safe to say it's impossible to talk to a christian with a "clue". Is incorrect right?
tackattack, you got me.

[tackattack]

The individuals in question obviously had no clue about macro-evolution and abiogenesis, but that doesn't entail all Christians don't have a clue about the subject.