Talk:50 reasons to believe in God

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Snappy comebacks?: a few "comebacks" OK, but not so many)
Line 52: Line 52:
 
:: All right then... I'll give Scotsman another day to suggest what we should do with his responses before I just take them out. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:55, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
 
:: All right then... I'll give Scotsman another day to suggest what we should do with his responses before I just take them out. --[[User:Kazim|Kazim]] 20:55, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
 
::: A few days ago, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=50_reasons_to_believe_in_God&diff=8480&oldid=8477 I added] a "snappy comeback", as it were, to one of the comments, because, well, it seemed so ''necessary''. Having two or three sarcastic retorts (worked into the main comments) seems to me to be entirely appropriate, but not on the ''majority'' of the responses. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 22:11, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
 
::: A few days ago, [http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=50_reasons_to_believe_in_God&diff=8480&oldid=8477 I added] a "snappy comeback", as it were, to one of the comments, because, well, it seemed so ''necessary''. Having two or three sarcastic retorts (worked into the main comments) seems to me to be entirely appropriate, but not on the ''majority'' of the responses. - [[User:Dcljr|dcljr]] 22:11, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
 +
 +
Chaps, I've just seen that my "Snappy Comebacks" have been removed. Obviously I'm sorry if my tone was not in keeping with the objectives of the Wiki (you can tell it is my first idea at editing), I just thought that sometimes detailed comebacks are not always necessary, rather in any debate a well aimed barb can disarm an opponent better than a long-winded retort. I shall, of course, bear this in mind for any future editing.  Regards. [[User:TheTrueScotsman|TheTrueScotsman]]

Revision as of 10:09, 26 June 2008

To be honest, so much of this is simply gibberish, it's going to take a while to sort out proper responses. And we thought Gish galloping was dead! Nullifidian 14:01, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Many of them can all be lumped together or the responses can be repeated. For instance, 15-20 may probably all be dismissed with Douglas Adams' "sentient puddle" analogy. Is there another name for that besides the fine tuning argument? --Kazim 15:37, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

As far as fallacies go, these could be a combination of unaccepted enthymemes, the existential fallacy, tautology, and/or denying the antecedent, and, of course, a priorism. -- Nullifidian 19:48, 18 June 2008 (CDT)
Thanks for translating my makeshift "puddle fallacy" responses to the more correct "anthropic principle" -- knew I was missing a better way to say that.fishbulb 22:29, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I understand the need to remain entirely objective, but I'm having trouble coming to an answer that isn't a giant "you're an idiot" with response to "26. If man has evolved from an animal, why doesn't he behave like an animal? Yet man is civilised." War, famine, corruption, oppression, slavery, hatred, racism, homocide, infantacide, genocide. That's what runs through my head, and I don't think argument ad ignoratiam alone covers it. Anyway, I'd be interested in how to elegantly, neutrally and directly explaining this one. --Zurahn 18:41, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

+1 for the "you're an idiot" response to most of these. Is that allowed, or do we have to play by the rules even when they refuse to/are unable? Nullifidian 19:31, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

Anyone know why the history page lists all the edits that have been made today, which is actually June 18 unless I've stepped into some time warp, as occurring on June 6? (Wait: Goddidit?) fishbulb 20:28, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

It's most likely that the system date of the server and separate offset in MediaWiki are conspiring to provide conflicting dates. It may be prudent to check the date on the server, and any date manipulation being done by MediaWiki. -- Nullifidian 20:43, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

And we now have an answer for every claim. 50 arguments, thoroughly demolished in less than 10 hours. Applause all around.

My next thought: how do we get this in front of the people who need to see it? I know, even if everyone who received the original email read these answers, we'd likely gain very few converts, but often just getting people to stop thinking on the level of this nonsense and considering their faith in logical terms can be the seed that sprouts into freethought, to appropriate their metaphor. I wouldn't want to start mass spamming people, but I certainly think anyone who forwards the original is fair game for a rational response, having opened the debate. What other methods can we use to make sure this effort (not that it took much, honestly) doesn't amount to us talking amongst ourselves? fishbulb 22:27, 18 June 2008 (CDT)

I dunno... google the wording of the original post periodically, find copies of it on the web, and publicly reply to them with this link? (i.e., post it on blogs) --Kazim 01:04, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

I...um...broke it. I've tried to fix the Comment Box for #7, but for some reason it just won't show up.

I couldn't identify the cause of the problem but I essentially just retyped it and it works now. fishbulb 20:14, 19 June 2008 (CDT)

Split into sections?

Does anyone have a strong objection to splitting the contents of this page into 50 sections? For example:

 == Reason 1 ==
 ...
 == Reason 2 ==
...

Now that all the "reasons" have rebuttals (and the page has grown to 31K), I think this would make future editing much easier, since much of it will probably be minor tweaking or expansion of individual responses. - dcljr 03:37, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

Sure, I'll do it. --Kazim 11:22, 20 June 2008 (CDT)
It Is Finished. --Kazim 11:52, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

Integrate the responses into existing articles

Some of the responses are now very long -- which is nice, but also doesn't quite match what I had in mind originally. I was hoping that any material which requires a lengthy response or multiple responses would be integrated into existing articles, so that it can improve the state of the articles as a whole. For example, "Reason 29" is about the use of the "BC/AD" system as proof that Jesus lived. It has three separate comment boxes on it. I would hope that this text could be folded into some article, such as Anno Domini or a new apologetic argument focused article with a header such as "The Western calendar proves that Jesus was real." Also, any comment box that has external links would likely be better off pointing to an article which includes those links in the "external links" section. What do you think? --Kazim 12:23, 20 June 2008 (CDT)

Snappy comebacks?

I hate to say this, I really do, because TheTrueScotsman has clearly put a lot of work into it. But I am just not sold on the idea that "Snappy comebacks" belong here. I love Mad Magazine, but this isn't a site for practicing comedy; it's for sincere counter-apologetics.

To the extent that the "snappy comebacks" make legitimate points, I think they should be worked into the counter-apologetics sections of each of the various argument pages. If they're just there to repeat things that were already said in the arguments, I feel like we can do without them.

Can I get some discussion please? I wouldn't feel comfortable just wiping out everything that TheTrueScotsman has done by fiat. --Kazim 07:27, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

Agreed in full. fishbulb 19:46, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
All right then... I'll give Scotsman another day to suggest what we should do with his responses before I just take them out. --Kazim 20:55, 24 June 2008 (CDT)
A few days ago, I added a "snappy comeback", as it were, to one of the comments, because, well, it seemed so necessary. Having two or three sarcastic retorts (worked into the main comments) seems to me to be entirely appropriate, but not on the majority of the responses. - dcljr 22:11, 24 June 2008 (CDT)

Chaps, I've just seen that my "Snappy Comebacks" have been removed. Obviously I'm sorry if my tone was not in keeping with the objectives of the Wiki (you can tell it is my first idea at editing), I just thought that sometimes detailed comebacks are not always necessary, rather in any debate a well aimed barb can disarm an opponent better than a long-winded retort. I shall, of course, bear this in mind for any future editing. Regards. TheTrueScotsman

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
wiki navigation
IronChariots.Org
Toolbox