Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="newusername" data-source="post: 6007950" data-attributes="member: 562064">Been there, done that.Post-hoc ergo propter hoc; a logical fallacy.&nbsp; A came before B, therefore A caused B.Confirmation bias.&nbsp; Ignores all the external and internal contradictions in the Bible but accepts the interpretation of certain sections.Special pleading.Sounds like Argument from Personal Incredulity.Ditto.&nbsp; Also, makes one wonder why some people drop dead when of seemingly good health.Don&#039;t know how to describe this; inconsistency?&nbsp; Certainly they don&#039;t acknowledge the conversion of almost every atheist who was originally a theist of some religion (I don&#039;t know many people lucky enough to not have been indoctrinated); Christians are now losing more people than they&#039;re gaining, so I suppose that is evidence that he doesn&#039;t exist.Be glad that it wasn&#039;t more ID focused, because those conversations are a nightmare to navigate.This sounds like the people who think everything in science is some obscure theory that is of no use.&nbsp; For example, I heard someone railing against the value of high-level mathematics the other day while they were watching their HDTV.An important thing to explain to them is the &quot;web&quot; of knowledge.&nbsp; Any individual fact may have a different explanation than we expect, and any single theory may not seem very plausible.&nbsp; But knowledge is a cumulative effect, where different facts and theories are interwoven.&nbsp; The same ideas that create all the technology in life (from medical advances to electronics to buildings) are the strongest parts of our web of knowledge, and while some ideas are more on the periphery, there is strength in the accumulation of facts and knowledge we have.Sounds like you&#039;re talking to someone who prefers to deny reality.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="newusername, post: 6007950, member: 562064"] Been there, done that. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc; a logical fallacy. A came before B, therefore A caused B. Confirmation bias. Ignores all the external and internal contradictions in the Bible but accepts the interpretation of certain sections. Special pleading. Sounds like Argument from Personal Incredulity. Ditto. Also, makes one wonder why some people drop dead when of seemingly good health. Don't know how to describe this; inconsistency? Certainly they don't acknowledge the conversion of almost every atheist who was originally a theist of some religion (I don't know many people lucky enough to not have been indoctrinated); Christians are now losing more people than they're gaining, so I suppose that is evidence that he doesn't exist. Be glad that it wasn't more ID focused, because those conversations are a nightmare to navigate. This sounds like the people who think everything in science is some obscure theory that is of no use. For example, I heard someone railing against the value of high-level mathematics the other day while they were watching their HDTV. An important thing to explain to them is the "web" of knowledge. Any individual fact may have a different explanation than we expect, and any single theory may not seem very plausible. But knowledge is a cumulative effect, where different facts and theories are interwoven. The same ideas that create all the technology in life (from medical advances to electronics to buildings) are the strongest parts of our web of knowledge, and while some ideas are more on the periphery, there is strength in the accumulation of facts and knowledge we have. Sounds like you're talking to someone who prefers to deny reality. [/QUOTE]

Verification