RE: Fallacies & Strategies
June 3, 2022 at 6:25 pm
(This post was last modified: June 3, 2022 at 6:28 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
There's a difference from being wrong in-fact, and mounting an argument from ignorance...though I suppose the terms in plain english probably lend themselves well to that conflation.
Perfectly fair, and another good comparison. States of belief are facts of a subject, just as their tastes in ice cream are facts of a subject. Rationalizations or justifications for those states of belief or taste are overwhelmingly ex post facto - and both can and have and do have far reaching consequences. I knew vanilla was the best flavor of icecream before I could articulate why...and some chocolate loving filth will be around shortly to explain why I'm wrong in-fact. Further, they'll explain, vanilla accelerated the deforestation of madagascar. Long hair, don't care, still the best flavor of ice cream.
IDK about these requirements for understanding. I'm not a surgeon, and I understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut open chests. Even if it were true, despite that observation...that you might need to be a god to understand a god (which probably holds some weight)... I don't think that people with moral disagreements are looking to understand a god, but a moral agent - and we're moral agents...so...surgeon to surgeon, right? Ultimately, though, the idea that any moral disagreement with gods -must- be an argument from ignorance is an implicit admission that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for many states of affairs. This defense of a gods alleged existence comes at the cost of it's moral warrant - which is going to be the final word in what and whether a person could cosign or worship - as that's referent to yet another set of facts of a subject. What they can personally stomach. You can probably imagine some world with a bad god you wouldn't worship. You don't believe that this is that world - but...for example, you might not be thrilled to find it was zues or wotan or the dagda or kali running the show, eh?.
If gods could be bad, and were bad, would it mean they couldn't exist? Well, no, that's a bad argument..i agree... but not on any point of fact. It's the structure. A bad existent god is still an existent god.
Perfectly fair, and another good comparison. States of belief are facts of a subject, just as their tastes in ice cream are facts of a subject. Rationalizations or justifications for those states of belief or taste are overwhelmingly ex post facto - and both can and have and do have far reaching consequences. I knew vanilla was the best flavor of icecream before I could articulate why...and some chocolate loving filth will be around shortly to explain why I'm wrong in-fact. Further, they'll explain, vanilla accelerated the deforestation of madagascar. Long hair, don't care, still the best flavor of ice cream.
IDK about these requirements for understanding. I'm not a surgeon, and I understand why surgeons sometimes intentionally severe arteries and cut open chests. Even if it were true, despite that observation...that you might need to be a god to understand a god (which probably holds some weight)... I don't think that people with moral disagreements are looking to understand a god, but a moral agent - and we're moral agents...so...surgeon to surgeon, right? Ultimately, though, the idea that any moral disagreement with gods -must- be an argument from ignorance is an implicit admission that there doesn't appear to be any good reason for many states of affairs. This defense of a gods alleged existence comes at the cost of it's moral warrant - which is going to be the final word in what and whether a person could cosign or worship - as that's referent to yet another set of facts of a subject. What they can personally stomach. You can probably imagine some world with a bad god you wouldn't worship. You don't believe that this is that world - but...for example, you might not be thrilled to find it was zues or wotan or the dagda or kali running the show, eh?.
If gods could be bad, and were bad, would it mean they couldn't exist? Well, no, that's a bad argument..i agree... but not on any point of fact. It's the structure. A bad existent god is still an existent god.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!