|
Post by Brent on Mar 9, 2010 23:31:10 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by phillip on Mar 10, 2010 0:17:54 GMT -5
The last 30 seconds made me lol.
|
|
|
Post by behemoth on Mar 10, 2010 1:03:09 GMT -5
This guy (like many within the church) is clinging to the ideological structures of modernity. I say this because you could replace the term "atheist" with "postmodern spiritualist" without really changing his argument. Thus the crux of his argument is not directed at "atheism" so much as it is against relativism. If he makes an argument, it is that atheism by nature places one within the confines of moral relativism. Caveat: By postmodern spiritualist I'm not typifying a specifc group of people, but rather referring to any number of groups that appeal to neo-spiritual religiostity and keep their conceptions of God abstract beyond the confines of the specifics of various religions but rather rely on the typically postmodern lens of experience and feeling. From now on, I'll be sure to look over my shoulder every time I see an atheist after I buy groceries.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 10, 2010 2:54:50 GMT -5
YEAH WATCH OUT BUDDY
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 10, 2010 3:46:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Ferd Berfel on Mar 11, 2010 3:22:24 GMT -5
His argument that atheism allows for the repression of a minority to bring happiness to a majority begins on a flawed premise.
When he says "The greatest happiness for the greatest number of people means that a minority of people should suffer in bondage. This way the greatest amount of freedom for the majority is insured," he presents that flawed premise. The greatest amount of overall freedom and happiness for the greatest majority is preserved when everyone shares it equally. In addition to that, if one were to oppress a minority, it would eventually become inevitable that the minority will rebel and overthrow the ruling class. One can see numerous examples of this occurring throughout history. This will inevitably cause more suffering and more oppression in the future, which is completely counterproductive.
Therefore, to preserve the largest amount of freedom and happiness while simultaneously insuring the least amount of suffering, slavery is one of the worst possible options.
Furthermore, he ends his argument using a very demagogue-esque appeal to emotion, essentially trying to shock you into saying "OMG ATHEISM IS FULL OF MORALLY DEFICIENT PSYCHOPATHS!!"
I have no respect for this man. He gives the rest of us Christians a terrible name.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 11, 2010 3:57:02 GMT -5
christians using appeal to emotion!??!?!
get out
|
|
|
Post by Ferd Berfel on Mar 11, 2010 4:10:27 GMT -5
Demagoguery is the biggest reason I despise having any kind of debate or discussion about anything with most of my fellow Christians. Very few of them have the ability or knowledge necessary to form a useful argument that isn't rife with fallacies.
I'm trying to teach as many of them as I can, but it's quite the undertaking sometimes.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 4:30:27 GMT -5
Are you saying an argument that appeals to emotion or personal experience is invalid? I think most people become Christian because of personal experience. In my college Communication class, we learned that there are many instances in debate where it is just as appropriate to appeal to peoples' emotions as well as to their intellect.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 11, 2010 4:35:25 GMT -5
Are you saying an argument that appeals to emotion or personal experience is invalid? yes, I've beaten this dead horse into the ground That would explain why they're so dumb.[/quote] Your communications class is a joke. Charisma plays a factor in certain argumentation, but when discussing matters such as the existence of a God, it is completely irrelevant, hence why text services a better purpose. It is free of any emotion.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 4:51:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 5:10:16 GMT -5
It's impossible to not be bias etc etc etc....... maybe we should all just communicate in mathematical equations.
|
|
|
Post by Brent on Mar 11, 2010 5:14:38 GMT -5
Brent, you do not leave emotion out of your arguments (i.e. "That would explain why they're so dumb", "this guy is a douche"). I am referring to followers of their God, not arguing about the God itself.
|
|
|
Post by Patrick on Mar 11, 2010 5:53:07 GMT -5
How does coming to a conclusion about the existence of God based on personal experience make someone dumb? There is a certain amount of uncertainty in life that no amount of studying can change, and in many instances we have to make decisions based on something that is not entirely certain, where all we have is our personal experience/worldview. These are certainly untrustworthy things, but in many cases, such as the existence of God or the notion in romance (he/she will be a good partner for me), they are all we have.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremy on Mar 11, 2010 15:25:19 GMT -5
|
|