(September 26, 2011 at 9:34 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: An appeal to authority is only fallacious if: A) The authority is fallible and B) The authority is not qualified as an expert in the area being discussed. Neither of these applies to God so it is not a fallacy to appeal to God’s authority.
My understanding of an appeal to authority is where the need for proof is replaced by someone else's say-so. Even experts in their field need to be able to show their work. Science places no weight on authority, only evidence.
If I'm listening to Richard Dawkins discussing evolution or Carl Sagan discussing the cosmos and all they had to say was "shut up, believe what I tell you, I'm the expert and I say so" this would not be a valid reason to believe their claims. Because these individuals can/could bring the weight of their research and evidence to the table, we believe what they say.
Quote:A) Scripture defines marriage this way1. No it doesn't.
2. Who the fuck cares?
Quote:B) The dictionary also defines marriage this way (the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. ).The dictionary changes with the times. Future dictionaries will probably define the term with gender neutral terms. This is not an absolute timeless authority.
Quote:So if I don’t agree with the definition of “murder” the government has no right to punish me for committing murder? This is a silly argument you have used here. Christ was very clear that scripture has always defined marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
1. Strawman
2. Red Herring
3. False equivocation
4. Who the fuck cares what your godboy said?
Quote:If he is using the definition of sin that scripture uses (something contrary to God’s decreed will), and the definition of marriage that both scripture and the dictionary use then he is not being arbitrary at all.
Your god is imaginary so it is arbitrary.
Quote:Not really, he was trying to reduce the opposing arguments to absurdity by showing that something that most everyone believes is wrong (bestiality) is wrong for the exact same reasons as homosexuality is.
It's a completely different topic and so is a red herring.
Quote:Yes, homosexuality violates God’s law in a number of ways.
Who the fuck cares what your imaginary god says?
Quote:The “real” field of psychology? No true Scotsman fallacy.Nope. There really are credentials and a process of peer review. Christians can whine all they like but your quack psychologists are laughed at just as much as your quack creation "scientists".
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist