• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dr Pepper Evolution Ad Creates Controversy on Facebook

What you call a proviso is really a self contradiction. You are unfairly stereotyping the religious by assuming that the intelligen religious are "few and far bewtween."

This is simple prejudice, and you can't undo it with a boilerplate disclaimer.

"self contradiction"? hardly. It is entirely consistent. My original statement was an existential generalization. Meaning that those properties apply to a number of literalists.

I did not say "religious" I said "literalist" - those people that believe that the Bible (old and new testament) is the literal inerrant word of God. They are the people who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and man walked with dinosaurs, and all the myths contained therein are actually true, like noah, babel, jonah and on and on.

You know its the kind of people who built the creation museum which I think it is a crime against intelligence and knowledge, even if it s protected free speech.
 
You are unfairly stereotyping the religious by assuming that the intelligen religious are "few and far bewtween."

He didn't assume that intelligent religious people are few and far between, he assumed that intelligent biblical literalists who are not either stupid, ignorant of afraid were few and far between.

You don't need to make his statement more of a generalization than it actually is in order to make a point about generalizations.

And frankly, in order to be a biblical literalist, one MUST be ignorant. It's a necessary condition that must be achieved (either by lack of exposure to knowledge, or through active rejection of knowledge) prior to accepting the dogma of biblical literalism. Knowledge of reality and biblical literalism are mutually exclusive situations.

Like I said, don't try to make statements more general than they are. His "sweeping generalization" happens to be fairly specific and, by virtue of a mutually exclusive situation, it also happens to be true. One must be, at the very least, ignorant in order to be a literalist. It's impossible to be possess knowledge AND take a literalist stance.
 
Last edited:
I did not say "religious" I said "literalist" - those people that believe that the Bible (old and new testament) is the literal inerrant word of God.

You were clear on it. He just has a little problem with creating strawmen on this topic.
 
Back
Top Bottom