I've discovered this problem in nearly every serious conversation I've ever had with a theist. They invent terms which have ambiguous meanings (at best) and then put them forth with such assertiveness that we're expected (by them) to simply accept that this new term is a reality. For some reason, even pointing out to them how the new concept fails to comport with reality doesn't seem to deter them from continuing to think it exists, and to argue from the POV that it exists.
The number of "just-so" arguments are probably too numerous to count, but the big ones I encounter are the "objective morality" and "appearance of design" ones. I come from a fundamentalist background, so I somewhat understand the source of their unshakably solid hold on these ideas as real despite all the logical fallacies they encompass; I refer to it as the "incestuous thought-circles". It's not a slur on rednecks or any such, but a reference to a sort of "echo-chamber effect" in which they form insular communities of mutual agreement, then pass an idea around that community until they get the idea that everyone must accept such a "commonly-known" concept. Then they trot out into the bright light of day with it, and are shocked and appalled that in reality, few outside their communities have a problem seeing right through it... and they retreat back into the community for support and encouragement, then trot out with their freshly-polished (old) idea to try again and again, with the same result.
The number of "just-so" arguments are probably too numerous to count, but the big ones I encounter are the "objective morality" and "appearance of design" ones. I come from a fundamentalist background, so I somewhat understand the source of their unshakably solid hold on these ideas as real despite all the logical fallacies they encompass; I refer to it as the "incestuous thought-circles". It's not a slur on rednecks or any such, but a reference to a sort of "echo-chamber effect" in which they form insular communities of mutual agreement, then pass an idea around that community until they get the idea that everyone must accept such a "commonly-known" concept. Then they trot out into the bright light of day with it, and are shocked and appalled that in reality, few outside their communities have a problem seeing right through it... and they retreat back into the community for support and encouragement, then trot out with their freshly-polished (old) idea to try again and again, with the same result.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
