Comment

!!! (Chk Chk Chk) - "This Is Pop 2"

141
Anymouse šŸŒ¹šŸ”šŸ˜·6/25/2023 3:48:16 am PDT

hi

Itā€™s nice to have quiet weather for a change. Moony (clear) and 50Ā°F / 10Ā°Commie. The temperature will be in the upper seventies today, with only a slight chance of thunderstorms for my trip to Cheyenne later. (Then tomorrow I can finally get this tooth fixed.)

In todayā€™s non-sequitur of apologetics, this one comes up a lot in real life. It is unfortunate pastors take advantage of their parishioners and arm them with bad arguments intentionally, so when the argument gets disassembled they go running back to the same church about the ā€œmean atheists.ā€ That is by design, to stop rational thinking about the question and keep the amateur apologist in the fold.

So this poor woman goes after a Christopher Hitchens quote. Hitchens was a lot of things (most notably a war-mongering neo-con ass) but his observations about bad arguments were such that he even has a logical razor named after him.

So the rebuttal she presents to this observation is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. No one denies faith exists, so she canā€™t argue against that at all. Instead sheā€™ll strawman a position he didnā€™t take.

(Iā€™ve had evangelists make this argument in person.)

Even if her unspoken position is correct (a god exists and itā€™s my particular version of a god), her answer doesnā€™t support that conclusion. No personā€™s faith in anything can ever be evidence for their audience.

Iā€™m not on Twitter, but I know what would happen if I did respond: She would block me rather than evaluate in good faith [I did that on purpose] the illogic of her statement and quit using it. Apologists donā€™t give up their bad arguments because they arenā€™t arguing in good faith [I did that on purpose too], they are looking for someone who canā€™t evaluate the apologetic presented.