Quote:
Originally Posted by devonin
A thread entitled "Does God Exist?" implies a question that has no concrete answer. Yes, we know. Presumably the person who made the thread also knows that. If there -were- proof, the answer would already be known.
But please, explain to me how discussion along the lines of "If God -did- exist, what would the ramifications be" and "If God -didn't- exist, what would the ramifications be?" is somehow not worthy of you or this forum.
|
That is the the precise distinction I seek. I disapprove of the former, but the latter is the exact type of thing which is worth discussing. I seek things that are on an "if we assume _____ then what does _____ actually imply" etc. What is the purpose of a thread on fallacies if we do not illuminate the common fallacies used, and evaluate the weight of said fallacies in terms of discussion.
This area is "specifically for higher-level thinkers" and to promote things that do not perpetuate that idea turns away higher level thinkers. Can you see where I'm coming from when I find something innately distasteful about a thread in which the majority of responses add nothing and clarify nothing in a particular discussion? I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to read the forum, I think we should just be more "stringent" on the expectations of the content in the forum. If the expectation is raised, so then is the quality of the post.
And to clarify the ambiguity, I used "rampant apologetics" because of the common connotation with apologetics in the Christian church, and moreover I meant that when someone sticks to a claim no matter what without giving any support and without actually allowing themselves to evaluate any of the argument. I have no problems with the defense of an argument.
My supports have left my original point in some tangent at some point, but truly the problem I see is people who beg the question as their primary support, and arguments where begging the question is all that can be done.
And yes, I am outwardly pretentious, and I do use ad hominem attacks (you may always consider it a fallacy, but an ad hominem attack within an argument does not mean that it will necessarily follow that the form of the argument itself is invalid or unsound or non-cogent, and does not necessarily mean that the argument itself is less effective due to that attack.) My pretension has no true impact on the validity value or soundness value of my claims, just like another person's humor doesn't. Linguistic style and validity are not mutually inclusive. I prefer my style because it disposes people to argue against me, and, which I hope has become quite clear, is the thing I come to a forum like this for.
In conclusion, I don't know if you've straw manned my arguments or if my statements have been ambiguous, because the argument you suppose that I claim is not the argument I claim.