Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP (David Norris) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Some answers for Rich Message-ID: <860@ssc-vax.UUCP> Date: Sun, 26-Feb-84 23:46:05 EST Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.860 Posted: Sun Feb 26 23:46:05 1984 Date-Received: Tue, 28-Feb-84 08:26:02 EST Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle Lines: 45 Perhaps a purely logical reply to this old argument would help? > I asked in an earlier article if Larry was alone in using misquoting and > word-twisting tactics among fundamentalist religionists. David has shown > that Larry most certainly is not alone in this. Argumentum ad hominem. >David provides a rebuttal to my article by *leaving out ALL of my argumentative > points* and only replying to my final paragraph in which I speculate (note the > use of the words "may be") on the reasons why he and Larry do not see the > scenario of one person's logical thought (that I posted in an earlier article) > as a valid one. To summarize, the scenario went something like this: > > Upon reading the Bible, and noting that God does many rather heinous things > according to the Bible, it follows that if the Bible were true, then God > must have indeed done those things. Reductive fallacy. Stops with a one level description of God (heinous) when there are many levels to be considered. This might also be a case of Hasty Generalization, or trying to make a general statement on too small a sample (as I mentioned in the earlier article, the good acts of Jesus). > ... What Tim (and others) have said is that IF the Bible > were to proven to be factual (or if it were simply be a "given" that it is > accepted as such), then he (and others) would make the first choice. BUT > since there is no proof/acceptance a priori that the the Bible IS factual, > the need to make that choice is washed away. (In fact, the fact that Tim > has found what he considered "holes" in the Bible, and that he has > documented them repeatedly, even if---through a divine miracle?---the Bible > were proved to be factual, the (factual) content would result in a negative > judgment of the god therein.) Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Assumes that the position wins by default; that is, the Bible is false because it cannot be "proven" true. I (and, I'm sure, Larry) am willing to discuss either one of these two topics: a) God appears morally reprehensible in the OT b) The Bible is full of holes Which would you like to discuss? -- David Norris :-) -- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david