Talk:Argument from inconsistent revelations
I'll probably be reworking this article soon. The mainline argument covers inconsistent revelations about the nature of god between different religions and serves as one possible rebuttal to Pascal's Wager (avoiding the wrong hell). I've been working on a newer version of this particular argument which eliminates some of the objections apologist's raise by narrowing the scope to competing ideas about the same "god concept". Sans Deity 10:59, 28 July 2006 (MST)
So what exactly is the problem with being stubborn? If someone insists that unicorns exist, surely a stubbornness to accept his claim is acceptable? Even praiseworthy? Britain's stubbornness in refusing to surrender to Germany? What about the Christian stubbornness in professing belief in things they've never seen? --BronzeDome 06:48, 15 July 2011 (CDT)
- You're using your own special definition of the word in your examples than is being used in the article. "Stubbornness" implies a degree of irrationality on the part of the stubborn. Theists often project their own irrational views of the divine onto atheists, accusing them of refusing to believe in a god simply "because they don't want to" (see Atheists are just in denial). That way, theists have an excuse to ignore both all the rational reasons for disbelieving theistic claims and the need to provide proof of those claims. I don't think you're suggesting that the only or best reason that people shouldn't believe in unicorns or surrender to Germany is "because they don't want to". Jdog 11:00, 15 July 2011 (CDT)
- 1) I reread that bit of the article just after posting, and decided that I had probably missed the point a bit.
- 2) When it comes to not surrendering to an invader, I'm somewhat inclined to think that "I don't want to (have them here)" seems like a pretty good reason to me. "Leave your weapons at home, and come back as tourists." But ultimately my point is more along the lines that that kind of labeling of an opponent (is this what is known as "ad hominem"?) merely serves as an "easy" way of dismissing them. My example of invasion is directed at what I assume would have been Hitler's view on Britain's resistance, though admittedly he would have gone further than labeling them as merely "stubborn". And, no, I don't think I'm expressing myself very clearly and also please bear in mind point 1).
- 3) I am starting to think that "could reply to this" in the article could be better expressed as "might reply...", but that is a minor point. --BronzeDome 05:09, 16 July 2011 (CDT)
- 4) Actually, I disagree that I am making up my own definition here. see eg . I have never debated any apologists, and have never heard the accusation of "stubbornness" myself, but I suspect that rationality as a concept, an idea, or however I shall put it, is as foreign (read unknown) to them as is rationality non-existent as a working condition of their minds. If they accuse you of stubbornness, they are in fact calling you obstinate. Uh-oh, according to Wiktionary, obstinate also can involve "unreasonableness", but with the conditional word "usually" prepended. How about I put it this way: Someone's accusing me of being "irrational" doesn't mean they have the foggiest notion of what "irrational" means... (Any atheist is by definition irrational, not by any understanding on the part of the accuser of the underlying questions.) And I'll put it another way: I think I myself didn't know of the "irrational" take on the word "stubborn" until you mentioned it. --05:58, 16 July 2011 (CDT)
Would stubbornness actually be relevant though? If God's given someone the evidence to believe, surely it would be a natural step to also give them a reason to believe as well? Bijane 10:47, 7 September 2011 (CDT)