I'm wonder why those with faith argue things such as the following.
Why would you argue in favor of anybody that shared your faith but did terrible things? Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss them as an out-liner or “nutter” and move on. I understand the “no true Scotsman” but clearly there are crazies in all parties and most that are brought up fit that bill.
Why would you argue anything that is disproved by modern science? Creationism comes to mind, claims against evolution in all their forms. The “it's just a theory” argument is so thin why even bring it up?
Why argue personal or inner circle experiences of god? It's subjective and selective. Why bother trying to say what happened to you is evidence of anything when you know it can be easily rejected and you have limited if any evidence that is objective? Why argue small sample size?
Why argue history? There are so many examples of faith gone wrong in history why even bring it up?
I'm sure there a many other areas that shouldn't even be approached by somebody arguing for faith.
Rather I'm curious why you would argue the ones above and others that don't have a firm footing in reason?
Would it be more productive to start from the known fact that 84% or so of the human population have some kind of faith and work backwards from there?
I dunno, I don't have any degrees or anything and haven't studies much. But it seems like starting from a position that is supported by some actual data would be wiser.
Why would you argue in favor of anybody that shared your faith but did terrible things? Wouldn't it be easier to dismiss them as an out-liner or “nutter” and move on. I understand the “no true Scotsman” but clearly there are crazies in all parties and most that are brought up fit that bill.
Why would you argue anything that is disproved by modern science? Creationism comes to mind, claims against evolution in all their forms. The “it's just a theory” argument is so thin why even bring it up?
Why argue personal or inner circle experiences of god? It's subjective and selective. Why bother trying to say what happened to you is evidence of anything when you know it can be easily rejected and you have limited if any evidence that is objective? Why argue small sample size?
Why argue history? There are so many examples of faith gone wrong in history why even bring it up?
I'm sure there a many other areas that shouldn't even be approached by somebody arguing for faith.
Rather I'm curious why you would argue the ones above and others that don't have a firm footing in reason?
Would it be more productive to start from the known fact that 84% or so of the human population have some kind of faith and work backwards from there?
I dunno, I don't have any degrees or anything and haven't studies much. But it seems like starting from a position that is supported by some actual data would be wiser.
"I'm thick." - Me
