• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

You can reject a refutation of a claim without believing the claim itsellf

Robin

Penultimate Amazing
Robin
Joined
Apr 29, 2004
Messages
14,971
I don't know why this even needs to be said, but apparently it does.

For example, on Twitter Sam Harris offered an argument as to why there is no afterlife. I pointed out that his argument worked for neither the Christian nor the Muslim conceptions of an afterlife. Someone responded and said the burden was on me to prove there is an afterlife. I said I don't believe there is an afterlife, to which he responded "So now you are backtracking".

It happens again and again. If I say that the Bible does not imply that pi is equal to 3 then I am assumed to be a Bible inerrantist.

If I say that time paradoxes do not prove that time travel is impossible people immediately that I am saying that time travel is possible. If I say.there is a perfectly good definition of God I am assumed to believe in God.

This attitude implied that if someone says "We know the Earth is spherical because the Bible tells us so" and I point out that this is not a good argument then this means I must be a flat earther.

No of course it doesn't. But why is it so difficult for people to understand this?
 
People are quick to pigeonhole when they have either-or else narratives.

And wasn't there some a few years ago about the "Rule of So?"
"So, you believe ..."
"So, you're saying ..."

There are ca couple of threads right now where people who disagree with the OP's argument, are slotted into being crypto believers.

And this happens in the politics section all the time.
 
Well, …

Just because somebody may give you their opinion about your postings, then it is quite possible for that somebody to have the wrong opinion about your postings.
 
Robin said:
I don't know why this even needs to be said, but apparently it does.

For example, on Twitter Sam Harris offered an argument as to why there is no afterlife. I pointed out that his argument worked for neither the Christian nor the Muslim conceptions of an afterlife. Someone responded and said the burden was on me to prove there is an afterlife. I said I don't believe there is an afterlife, to which he responded "So now you are backtracking".

It happens again and again. If I say that the Bible does not imply that pi is equal to 3 then I am assumed to be a Bible inerrantist.

If I say that time paradoxes do not prove that time travel is impossible people immediately that I am saying that time travel is possible. If I say.there is a perfectly good definition of God I am assumed to believe in God.

This attitude implied that if someone says "We know the Earth is spherical because the Bible tells us so" and I point out that this is not a good argument then this means I must be a flat earther. No of course it doesn't.
Click to expand...

What you're describing here sounds like a "False Dilemma" fallacy.

Robin said:
But why is it so difficult for people to understand this?
Click to expand...

Its no more complicated than the fact they are stupid!
.
.
 
It seems to also be used as a tool to win a disagreement when desperate.
Discount the person doing it?
 
I see this all the time in R&P. Lifelong atheists argue against religion, but the arguments they are making are bad arguments. I do not have to believe in the religion in order to point this out.
 
I think this was a favorite issue of the late poster here, Marplots. He often got cussed as a contrarian (and he could be annoying at times anyway) because he refused to accept a bad argument even for a good cause.
 
In a similar vein, and to paraphrase CS Lewis: Nothing worse than trying to defend weak arguments in defence of your worldview. Far more honest to point out the weakness of such arguments even if they support overall conclusions you agree with.

But of course, as the OP states, when you point out bad arguments on your own side, you get called a member of the other side. Sometimes people continually using bad arguments do more harm against their own side than anything the other side can do.

Edited by jimbob: 
removed rule 12 violation
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom