Posted: Aug 31, 2010 10:04 am
ADParker wrote:We rational people might think it a good argument (as it, like so many, is.) But to the True-BelieverTM they start with the conviction that their belief (say Teh Flud occurring at that time in history) is a foundational and thus unshakable fact. And from that footing it is rational (it really is) to dismiss anything that contradicts that as clearly erroneous. And they will make up any argument to push it away.
Yes a common one is "where you there?", which is a claim (an assertion really) that "obviously" you (you silly atheists/evolutionists/scientists...) got the dates wrong, because it is a FACT that Teh Flud happened then. So either the events you decribe actually happened some time later, and you just got the dates wrong somehow, or you are deliberately lying.
I know, it's sad.
Fundi logic is a bit like some pure math really....internally consistent. Robotic, which is why I don't like pure logic. reason is better because it lets in evidence outside of a logical system. That is why I have a problem with some mathematical models, because although they "work" they don't let other stuff in. In fact I think some rigour can be enhanced by being a little "leaky". Like evolution appears tautological, because in some respects, it is. There is nothing wrong with Spencer's "Survival of the fittest" except it does not have enough detail to explain what is going on.