RE: What if other ideas were defended the same way?
November 11, 2014 at 1:50 pm
(This post was last modified: November 11, 2014 at 1:52 pm by DeistPaladin.)
(November 11, 2014 at 10:49 am)Chas Wrote: You are equating ideologies with inanimate objects? That is a curious idea.
I'm equating the automatic rule out of one possible cause for a given effect in an analysis of a given problem, since that fallacy is at work with both topics.
Just as it is fallacious to assume a positive conclusion on the source of a cause to a given effect and then look for evidence to support it ("look at the universe, Jesus must have done it, so let's look for reasons to believe that"), so too it is fallacious to automatically, by assumption, rule out a possible cause ("oh, it couldn't be that, and no, we won't even discuss it") and look for other possible causes to blame.
A similar fallacy is at work. That the possible cause being discussed is either the availability of a certain object or the possible dangerous implications of an idea is beside the point.
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
