(September 16, 2013 at 10:57 pm)AtheistCreed Wrote: If there is even a single exception to the rule then the accuracy of the generality is nullified.

Ee, what? To generalize is to describe the makeup of most members of a particular class of thing. It does not need to be universal, as it's not purporting to accurately describe every member, merely the majority.

Indeed. The statement "bananas are generally curved" is in no way nullified by the discovery of a straight banana.

When generalizing people, and groups of people, it is quite inaccurate.

When generalizing fruits or other inanimate objects, then they can be more easily accepted.

People, on the other hand, are far too diverse and complex to generalize accurately. Yes we can make generalizations, but don't confuse a generalization such as "Christians believe in the Trinity" (which is true in the majority of cases) with a much narrower generalization such as "Christians support genocide", the one is a fundamental tenant to many Christians and is accepted widely as true, whereas the other is pinpointing specifics in scripture which many Christians may be unaware of, and will have various personal rejections and theological arguments for.

Generalizing people in a debate is not going to lead the debate in the right direction.

That's all I'm saying, essentially.

That whole thing about bananas (I never know when I've got to the end of that word!) was just an analogy pointing out that a single erroneous or even anomalous result doesn't necessarily invalidate the whole thing. I wasn't seriously suggesting that bananas (gah!) and people are directly comparable.

Incidentally, bananas (I hope I never have to type that word again) aren't fruits, though they can be classed as inanimate objects. Generally speaking.

(September 17, 2013 at 12:06 am)AtheistCreed Wrote: When generalizing people, and groups of people, it is quite inaccurate.

When generalizing fruits or other inanimate objects, then they can be more easily accepted.

People, on the other hand, are far too diverse and complex to generalize accurately. Yes we can make generalizations, but don't confuse a generalization such as "Christians believe in the Trinity" (which is true in the majority of cases) with a much narrower generalization such as "Christians support genocide", the one is a fundamental tenant to many Christians and is accepted widely as true, whereas the other is pinpointing specifics in scripture which many Christians may be unaware of, and will have various personal rejections and theological arguments for.

Generalizing people in a debate is not going to lead the debate in the right direction.

That's all I'm saying, essentially.

You understand that in order to be a bible believing christian then you must believe that god was just in committing Genocide, on many occassions. And most of the theists on this forum have said some vile things in defense of god's mass murder.

(September 17, 2013 at 2:11 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 12:06 am)AtheistCreed Wrote: When generalizing people, and groups of people, it is quite inaccurate.

When generalizing fruits or other inanimate objects, then they can be more easily accepted.

People, on the other hand, are far too diverse and complex to generalize accurately. Yes we can make generalizations, but don't confuse a generalization such as "Christians believe in the Trinity" (which is true in the majority of cases) with a much narrower generalization such as "Christians support genocide", the one is a fundamental tenant to many Christians and is accepted widely as true, whereas the other is pinpointing specifics in scripture which many Christians may be unaware of, and will have various personal rejections and theological arguments for.

Generalizing people in a debate is not going to lead the debate in the right direction.

That's all I'm saying, essentially.

You understand that in order to be a bible believing then you must believe that god was just in committing Genocide, on many occassions. And most of the theists on this forum have said some vile things in defense of god's mass murder.

A bible believing what?

(September 17, 2013 at 2:11 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 12:06 am)AtheistCreed Wrote: When generalizing people, and groups of people, it is quite inaccurate.

When generalizing fruits or other inanimate objects, then they can be more easily accepted.

People, on the other hand, are far too diverse and complex to generalize accurately. Yes we can make generalizations, but don't confuse a generalization such as "Christians believe in the Trinity" (which is true in the majority of cases) with a much narrower generalization such as "Christians support genocide", the one is a fundamental tenant to many Christians and is accepted widely as true, whereas the other is pinpointing specifics in scripture which many Christians may be unaware of, and will have various personal rejections and theological arguments for.

Generalizing people in a debate is not going to lead the debate in the right direction.

That's all I'm saying, essentially.

You understand that in order to be a bible believing then you must believe that god was just in committing Genocide, on many occassions. And most of the theists on this forum have said some vile things in defense of god's mass murder.

This is wrong. I know plenty of Xtians who don't give two shits about the god of the OT. They cherry pick only that which they like, which is usually just the message of love given by Jaysus. They even get offended at the notion of believing in a god like Yahweh.

(September 17, 2013 at 12:06 am)AtheistCreed Wrote: People, on the other hand, are far too diverse and complex to generalize accurately. Yes we can make generalizations, but don't confuse a generalization such as "Christians believe in the Trinity" (which is true in the majority of cases) with a much narrower generalization such as "Christians support genocide", the one is a fundamental tenant to many Christians and is accepted widely as true, whereas the other is pinpointing specifics in scripture which many Christians may be unaware of, and will have various personal rejections and theological arguments for.

It would be inaccurate to suggest that Christians, in general, think highly of the act of mass murder, but if you point out the fact that God is depicted as one in his own scripture, most of them will deny it or attempt to hand wave it.

Several Christians on this forum, however, know very well that they worship a mass murdering monster and they think that being a mass murderer doesn't necessarily make one monstrous. Explain to them that children and infants were brutally massacred and they'll be happy to explain to you why they were evil criminals who got exactly what thy deserved.

(September 17, 2013 at 2:22 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote:

(September 17, 2013 at 2:11 am)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: You understand that in order to be a bible believing then you must believe that god was just in committing Genocide, on many occassions. And most of the theists on this forum have said some vile things in defense of god's mass murder.

This is wrong. I know plenty of Xtians who don't give two shits about the god of the OT. They cherry pick only that which they like, which is usually just the message of love given by Jaysus. They even get offended at the notion of believing in a god like Yahweh.

That's a good thing, though maybe they should read the bible more. Still if they don't believe in the god of the old testament then what are they being saved from, and why the ten commandments.

(September 17, 2013 at 2:19 am)catfish Wrote: A bible believing what?

A bible-believing <bleep>.