Questions about noah ark

[Thumpalumpacus]

As well as false equivocation, it's also a tu quoque. I have no good reason, but neither do you, so there. That's not an argument,

You get two, two, two fallacies for the price of one!

---

If my truck doesn't run reliably, I don't have a reasonable expectation of it starting.

Oh, and I should add, if it doesn't start reliably, I will go shopping for another truck.

Can you say the same about your faith, prof? If your prayers aren't answered by your god(s), do you try other options? No, you cannot. And that is perhaps the most important difference: when my truck doesn't start, I don't paint my face in ash and do penance; I don't beat myself with chains in order to demonstrate my humility before a god; I don't climb into the confessional and beg forgiveness.

I get out my toolkit and fix it -- or I move on to another vehicle that will get me where I want to go.

When's the last time you've shopped for a vehicle, prof?

[downbeatplumb]

hey - WTF is Gopher Wood?

It's wood from far away so you have to gofer it. (go for it).

I'm here all week.

[user]

Why is it in the christian section? I remember having that debate with a muslim 5 years ago, and poor ignorant me was trying to explain to him that there are over 100 thousand species of of flies alone in the universe, and to just save the flies you need an arch. And him saying nu uh and Noah lived 700 years and he built it when he was 500, here I was talking about species and Darwinism and he lacks the common sense to not believe that the human race use to live millenias and that it apparently eluded all scientists etc... it was a lost fight. What a moronic prophet that lives 700 years and fails to write one book or discover anything.

[professor]

I suppose this is in the Christian section because the Muslims are 600 years late to the party and their top guys are busy with inciting the killing of infidels.

Now Parker, your questions about penance, self molestation, confessionals, ought to directed to Catholics, Hindus and Muslims rather than people like myself, because those practices are found to be done by them.

When I have something that doesn't work, I investigate how I missed it.
I do not lay the blame elsewhere.

As far as faith goes, your definition of it is as far away from my experience as the moon is from earth.
And also very far from normal usage in everyday life, but I suppose you have to do that the keep the mirage going.

[Esquilax]

As well as false equivocation, it's also a tu quoque. I have no good reason, but neither do you, so there. That's not an argument,

I think it says a lot about religious argumentation that, even if we grant all the premises completely, ninety percent of the time the conclusion still isn't a germane point about the topic.

[dyresand]

As well as false equivocation, it's also a tu quoque. I have no good reason, but neither do you, so there. That's not an argument,

I think it says a lot about religious argumentation that, even if we grant all the premises completely, ninety percent of the time the conclusion still isn't a germane point about the topic.

Well i already said it before religion offers no one anything not even answers to simple questions. So well i agree with you and rob on this.

[goodwithoutgod]

You have faith in your car.
If that faith was in spite of evidence- you would would be looking for a reliable one to replace it.

Every time I see this gambit from a believer, I have to wonder why they are so fucking ashamed of their faith that they must try to portray it as something it is not.

I'm reasonably certain my truck will start, but I've had enough experience to know that it might not, and so while I expect it to start, I know what to do if it doesn't. If my truck doesn't run reliably, I don't have a reasonable expectation of it starting. None of that is remotely similar to the blind faith placed by believers in deities. My truck runs, and I can explain exactly why it runs if you wish. Faith need not apply; we are in the realm of knowledge here.

Faith in god has a different connotation than faith in people, anyway, or faith in the system of justice. Equivocation isn't going to get you nearer the truth.

One of my fav fallacies, that one. "you have faith in science"..or..."you have faith in love"..You can't compare something for which we have abundant evidence (love, the actions of a real person, knowledge that a mechanical vehicle works) to a faith claim, which by definition is that for which lacks evidence. Nice try though. The idea my wife probably loves me is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that a being created the universe is an extraordinary claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they both "require faith" is disanalogous.

[Esquilax]

One of my fav fallacies, that one. "you have faith in science"..or..."you have faith in love"..You can't compare something for which we have abundant evidence (love, the actions of a real person, knowledge that a mechanical vehicle works) to a faith claim, which by definition is that for which lacks evidence. Nice try though. The idea my wife probably loves me is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that a being created the universe is an extraordinary claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they both "require faith" is disanalogous.

I actually have little issue with the "you have faith in X!" point when it's made as Drich used it, with a clear and unambiguous definition of what he meant when he said that, that makes it clear that the type of faith he's talking about is so broad, and encompassed in so many reasonable actions one might take, that it's not exactly something you could denigrate anyone for having.

The issue I take with Drich's claim, and this is the one I take with these "atheist faith" things in general, is that he then turns around and denigrates us for having it anyway, in the process hiding an additional premise that hasn't been justified and is, on the face of it, ridiculous, which is that "all kinds of faith is exactly the same, and is identical to my religious views."

This is obviously false and, aside from being where the equivocation comes in, is merely an attempt to skirt the issue under discussion with word games, and in the process shows how little Drich is actually listening to what other people are saying to him. The point of contention, when it comes to these religious discussions, is that the "faith" (belief, confidence) that the theist has in god is unjustified, for a series of reasons that are explained subsequent to that initial contention. But it's like Drich only hears the first part, the "your faith is worthless," part, and so seeks to repackage any more reasonable, justified epistemological positions as faith too, which doesn't actually address the point of contention at all, it just puts it into different words, that are now completely irrelevant to the actual issue by virtue of the redefinition Drich had to go through to get there.

It's such a circuitous, dishonest attempt at maneuvering around a point to cover for his inability to face it head on, that the simple action of making the argument turns the point of the argument irrelevant.

[robvalue]

Every theist argument I have ever seen, to demonstrate any kind of "truth" about their religion or God, is dishonest. The only question is whether it's wilful dishonesty.

[goodwithoutgod]

One of my fav fallacies, that one. "you have faith in science"..or..."you have faith in love"..You can't compare something for which we have abundant evidence (love, the actions of a real person, knowledge that a mechanical vehicle works) to a faith claim, which by definition is that for which lacks evidence. Nice try though. The idea my wife probably loves me is not a radical hypothesis. The idea that a being created the universe is an extraordinary claim. Equating an extraordinary claim with a mundane one, and then suggesting they both "require faith" is disanalogous.

I actually have little issue with the "you have faith in X!" point when it's made as Drich used it, with a clear and unambiguous definition of what he meant when he said that, that makes it clear that the type of faith he's talking about is so broad, and encompassed in so many reasonable actions one might take, that it's not exactly something you could denigrate anyone for having.

The issue I take with Drich's claim, and this is the one I take with these "atheist faith" things in general, is that he then turns around and denigrates us for having it anyway, in the process hiding an additional premise that hasn't been justified and is, on the face of it, ridiculous, which is that "all kinds of faith is exactly the same, and is identical to my religious views."

This is obviously false and, aside from being where the equivocation comes in, is merely an attempt to skirt the issue under discussion with word games, and in the process shows how little Drich is actually listening to what other people are saying to him. The point of contention, when it comes to these religious discussions, is that the "faith" (belief, confidence) that the theist has in god is unjustified, for a series of reasons that are explained subsequent to that initial contention. But it's like Drich only hears the first part, the "your faith is worthless," part, and so seeks to repackage any more reasonable, justified epistemological positions as faith too, which doesn't actually address the point of contention at all, it just puts it into different words, that are now completely irrelevant to the actual issue by virtue of the redefinition Drich had to go through to get there.

It's such a circuitous, dishonest attempt at maneuvering around a point to cover for his inability to face it head on, that the simple action of making the argument turns the point of the argument irrelevant.

exactly, well said. Perhaps my assertion was too brief, you did a much better job articulating that.