Barriers to atheist - theist dialogue

[Angrboda]

By the way, you did not respond to the question of the Colorado lawsuit (to which I gave a link) that the church argued foetuses are not persons to avoid paying out in a wrongful death case. Nor the Indian woman in Ireland.

Avoiding answering tough questions by calling others "liars" does not answer the questions. It shows nothing more than a lack of understanding of the rules of debate.

In all fairness, he did respond to the Colorado question. And I for one would like to see more than an argument from silence before you go about slinging the mud.

[Anymouse]

In all fairness, he did respond to the Colorado question. And I for one would like to see more than an argument from silence before you go about slinging the mud.

I went back and read all the posts, I could find no such response. Perhaps if you point me to the place where he wrote it I could then read it.

As for an argument from silence, I do not know what that means. Perhaps it is my poor education, firmly grounded in high school.

If it means I did not respond right away or within a few hours, I would offer that this part of the country only has intermittent Internet service (contrary to popular belief, the USA does not provide equal access to all and is not a First World country everywhere - we don't even have cell phone service here, despite what Verizon is saying about their spankin' new 4G network). (We did get 911 service last year though, but still have dial phones.)

I have also been in a narcotic-induced stupor over the dry socket after a tooth extraction I had last week, and am going two hundred miles to the dentist to have it looked at again later in the day.

If it means I called him out on a question that I saw no answer to: leaving an unanswered challenge in discussion I understand to be tacit acceptance of the point made by the question, in this case, did he approve of the Catholic hospital in Colorado making an argument that twin foetuses that could have been saved by Caesarian section but allowed to die was moral, since the crux of its claim was that they were not persons, simply to avoid a wrongful death finding in a lawsuit? That is a moral question in my view that goes straight to the heart of his claims that the Catholic Church is a moral force for good. (It also goes against the Catholic Church's claim that a fertilised egg is ensouled, and thus a person, upon conception. I do note that the bishop in the area condemned the legal argument. I also note that the Church did not offer to meet the settlement or any part of it.)

I merely seek justification for his claims about the Church and the Pope. I only asked questions, I did not "sling mud." It is not my fault if the questions have uncomfortable answers that do not conveniently fit the religious edifice he presents.

[Angrboda]

In all fairness, he did respond to the Colorado question. And I for one would like to see more than an argument from silence before you go about slinging the mud.

As for an argument from silence, I do not know what that means. Perhaps it is my poor education, firmly grounded in high school.

An argument from silence (also called argumentum a silentio in Latin) is generally a conclusion drawn based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. In the field of classical studies, it often refers to the deduction from the lack of references to a subject in the available writings of an author to the conclusion that he was ignorant of it.

Thus in historical analysis with an argument from silence, the absence of a reference to an event or a document is used to cast doubt on the event not mentioned. While most historical approaches rely on what an author's works contain, an argument from silence relies on what the book or document does not contain. This approach thus uses what an author "should have said" rather than what is available in the author's extant writings.

Some scholars such as Errietta Bissa flatly state that arguments from silence are not valid. Other scholars such as David Henige state that, although risky, such arguments can at times shed light on historical events. Yifa has pointed out the perils of arguments from silence, in that although no references appear to the "Rules of purity" codes of monastic conduct of 1103 in the Transmission of the Lamp, or any of the Pure Land documents, a copy of the code in which the author identifies himself exists.

Wikipedia:

I went back and read all the posts, I could find no such response. Perhaps if you point me to the place where he wrote it I could then read it.

See the other thread on this.

The hospital is not being hypocritical, rather its defence is pointing out that, given the law says an unborn child is not a person, it cannot issue a judgement on grounds that it is a person.

The law has to apply its principles consistently.

Its a typical "rag on the Catholics" media story - presenting an exceptionally twisted take on events, for people to affirm their existing prejudices.

[]

If what you are saying is that he didn't respond to the question in a manner that met with your satisfaction, that's a different matter, and would make your complaint an example of equivocation, and your charge that he was "avoiding questions" a disingenuous one.