HRG

They are the only kind of explanations where we can reasonably assume we have found approximate truth. Maybe the universe was created last Thursday by my cat, but how could we ever know this to be true or false ?
No it is not - unless you know the motivations of the designer, and whether the designed object actually performs as intended. "Some unspecified designer did X by unspecified methods and for unspecified purposes" says exactly nothing about X.

regards,
HRG.

MrDarwin

Two things have already been pointed out to Andrew by several people: first, that the things he lists do not require supernatural explanations (he has yet to explain why he thinks they do), and second, even if they are shown to have natural explanations, they would not disprove the existence of god(s). He has asked a question that has a faulty premise in the first place, which is why so few people have taken him up on it.

It's like the old creationist chestnut: that for evolution to be true, the existence of God must be false, and for the existence of God to be true, evolution must be false. Again, disproving one does not prove the other, and proving one does not disprove the other.

ex-preacher

I recall reading in the Dallas Morning News a few years back that lawyers were interviewing potential jurors more closely about their religious beliefs. They were learning that some Christians were refusing to find guilty parties culpable in civil lawsuits. These Christians reasoned: It wasn't the fault of the pilot or airline that the plane went down, it was God's will. Scary.

ex-preacher

Here's the way it works: It's literal when that fits the theology and figurative/spiritual when it doesn't. Thus, hyper-literalist Mike can say with a straight face that the part about Adam dying the very day he ate of the forbidden fruit is speaking of spiritual death. Also, bruising the head of a serpent is not to be taken literally.

This amazing ability to apply literal or figurative interpretations at will to any scripture helps account for the thousands of denominations, each claiming to have found the true meaning. And each can accuse the others of twisting scripture.

bonduca

-----

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

Ted Hoffman

wrong post sorry!!

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Intensity ]</p>

atrahasis

You think i dont know what straw man is; unless if it is not this ::: it is Distraction fallacy.

its real description is this:
This fallacy is deceptive because the person attacking another argument in order to strengthen his own attacks a weaker version of the opposition's argument. In this sense it involves picking the weakest or most emotionally negative form of an opponents argument or position and attacking it. The name "straw man" comes from the fact that it is easier to knock down a man made of straw than it is to knock down a real man. (most will fight back). Politicians will try to use this fallacy all of the time, mainly because the voters (us) hardly ever know enough about a given position to be aware of an unfair characterization.
(This fallacy goes hand in hand with the Principle of Charitable Interpretation- if we are trying to find out the truth, then we want to consider the strongest possible opposition to our position, not the weakest.)
Aso: one common technique- and one which is always suspect, is to interpret the opposition's position so that a parallel between them and the Nazis can be drawn. i.e.- arguments against Euthanasia.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

RogerLeeCooke

Probably most of the people on this board have read Edmund Cohen's "The Mind of the Bible Believer". In his list of the 7 components of the evangelical mind-control system (loaded phrase, I know, it grates on me), he lists "verbicide." (He uses "logocide" and apologizes for mixing Latin and Greek roots. I don't know why he didn't go with pure Latin; it's a lovely word I just coined.) Anyway, Cohen points out the bait-and-switch tactics the evangelicals use when altering the meaning of such words as life, death, freedom, etc. The ordinary meanings draw people in. After they are well-socialized and afraid of losing their community, they gradually learn that freedom is slavery, war is peace, etc.

lcb

[Off-topic remarks deleted and moved to RRP -- V]

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Devilnaut

I'm a strong atheist with respect to the christian God, and um.. I seem to be doing just fine, whatever that means

What exactly was meant by that comment? Aren't doing to well where, and in what respect?