(December 3, 2014 at 3:36 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Ugh, more of this false equivalence shit. Fuck off with your dishonest definition of "faith" and don't compare unsubstantiated claims of supernatural bullshittery from 2000 years ago to history of which we have physical writings, artifacts, and accounts.
False equivalence: The pattern of the fallacy is often as such: If A is the set of c and d, and B is the set of d and e, then since they both contain d, A and B are equal. d is not required to exist in both sets; only a passing similarity is required to cause this fallacy to be able to be used.
Eg:
"Marijuana and alcohol are both drugs. An ounce is about the same as three bottles. If you think one should be (il)legal, you should think the same of the other."
So, no. this is not an example of false equivalence. This is an example of one identifying faith in a system of thought that abhores faith, but refuses to look at it's own heavy dependance on faith in that very system.
Faith in facts is still faith. Why? because the facts that support your 'theory' are ever changing. It takes a large measure of faith to believe with out doubt that the current version of 'facts' repersent the truth. especially when every few years all of the critical points and dates are changed when ever someone smarter comes along and thinks of something new to add or if something is found in the dirt that cant be explained by the current model.
Open your eyes and mind FF to the truth of the matter, that no matter what you believe you are still using faith to believe it.
