• 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!

Is religion about avoiding reality?

ecofarm said:
Is that it, then? I've defeated nonsense?
Click to expand...

You've defeated your own purpose.

I work Sunday mornings. If I'm not back in two hours start without me.
 
Tim the plumber said:
Yes, obviously those who are at the top, the management, the priests, don't believe a word of it. For them it is all power.

But those at the bottom do not have that do they? So given that it is all drivel why is there any want for it?
Click to expand...

Fear.
 
Ouroboros said:
...commentators who are just looking to score some imagined points, like accusing other posters of making 'straw man arguments" when in truth no such arguments have been propounded.
Click to expand...

You mean like criticizing somebody for speaking out against "all religions", when they were only discussing Catholics? In other words constructing an argument on their behalf they never made, then knocking it down so as to declare some sort of intellectual victory? That lack of straw man argumentation, and scoring imaginary points?


OM
 
Omega Man said:
You mean like criticizing somebody for speaking out against "all religions", when they were only discussing Catholics? In other words constructing an argument on their behalf they never made, then knocking it down so as to declare some sort of intellectual victory? That lack of straw man argumentation, and scoring imaginary points?


OM
Click to expand...

Please get back to me when you've found the correct definition of "straw man."

Hint: it has not now, or even included, quizzing someone as to whether their expressed beliefs are consistent across the board.
 
Ouroboros said:
Please get back to me when you've found the correct definition of "straw man."

Hint: it has not now, or even included, quizzing someone as to whether their expressed beliefs are consistent across the board.
Click to expand...

You created an argument, placed it into somebody else's mouth, then refuted - thus knocked down - that argument. By definition, a straw man argument.


OM
 
Omega Man said:
You created an argument, placed it into somebody else's mouth, then refuted - thus knocked down - that argument. By definition, a straw man argument.


OM
Click to expand...

At no time did I place any argument in Z's mouth. I stated my conclusions and challenged him to defend his generalization. He chose not to, while you chose to make the absurd claim that on a thread about religion, no one should ask a poster to define his position about religion generally, only about Catholics, because that's what his silly joke concerned.

Actually, by promulgating the idea that I've put some statement in his mouth, you're the one guilty of making a straw man argument.
 
Ouroboros said:
At no time did I place any argument in Z's mouth. I stated my conclusions and challenged him to defend his generalization. He chose not to, while you chose to make the absurd claim that on a thread about religion, no one should ask a poster to define his position about religion generally, only about Catholics, because that's what his silly joke concerned.

Actually, by promulgating the idea that I've put some statement in his mouth, you're the one guilty of making a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

The original poster referred specifically to Catholics. Z responded about Catholics. You countered by expanding the argument to all denominations, and in doing so rejected Z's response (which referred only to Catholics). It's all there in black and white; you can refute, but you can't hide.


OM
 
Ouroboros said:
At no time did I place any argument in Z's mouth. I stated my conclusions and challenged him to defend his generalization. He chose not to, while you chose to make the absurd claim that on a thread about religion, no one should ask a poster to define his position about religion generally, only about Catholics, because that's what his silly joke concerned.

Actually, by promulgating the idea that I've put some statement in his mouth, you're the one guilty of making a straw man argument.
Click to expand...

I was talking about celibate Catholic priests. It was not a generalization.
 
Omega Man said:
The original poster referred specifically to Catholics. Z responded about Catholics. You countered by expanding the argument to all denominations, and in doing so rejected Z's response (which referred only to Catholics). It's all there in black and white; you can refute, but you can't hide.


OM
Click to expand...

Some people can never admit to a mistake.
 
Omega Man said:
The original poster referred specifically to Catholics. Z responded about Catholics. You countered by expanding the argument to all denominations, and in doing so rejected Z's response (which referred only to Catholics). It's all there in black and white; you can refute, but you can't hide.


OM
Click to expand...

It is indeed there in black and white, including the question mark that marks it as a question about consistency, not an attempt to claim that Z holds a certain position, which is the only thing that could be deemed a straw-man argument.


Not all religions have celibate priests, so are you stating that the ones that do not are free of the "flaw" you perceive?
Click to expand...

To date, Z has never answered this question. What I've presented him with is a "reducio ad absurdum" of what his position would be if he cared to extend it logically. but this is not the same as my saying I really think he holds this belief. What I've used is a rhetorical device designed to show that the other person in the debate has not thought out his position.
 
Ouroboros said:
It is indeed there in black and white, including the question mark that marks it as a question about consistency, not an attempt to claim that Z holds a certain position, which is the only thing that could be deemed a straw-man argument.




To date, Z has never answered this question. What I've presented him with is a "reducio ad absurdum" of what his position would be if he cared to extend it logically. but this is not the same as my saying I really think he holds this belief. It's a rhetorical device to show that the other person in the debate has not thought out his position.
Click to expand...

My thought is that celibate priests are not the ideal people to consult about marriage. That is all I have to say on the subject.
 
zyzygy said:
My thought is that celibate priests are not the ideal people to consult about marriage. That is all I have to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Don't forget the previous statement, to the effect that you didn't advocate marriage consultation at all.

You're not required to answer any questions I pose. But I'm not, to the best of my knowledge, forbidden from asking you to explain whatever statements you make-- which questions you can also refuse to answer.
 
Ouroboros said:
Don't forget the previous statement, to the effect that you didn't advocate marriage consultation at all.

You're not required to answer any questions I pose. But I'm not, to the best of my knowledge, forbidden from asking you to explain whatever statements you make-- which questions you can also refuse to answer.
Click to expand...

I don't advocate it. So what?
 
zyzygy said:
My thought is that celibate priests are not the ideal people to consult about marriage. That is all I have to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's pretty much what I got out of it too.


OM
 
zyzygy said:
My thought is that celibate priests are not the ideal people to consult about marriage. That is all I have to say on the subject.
Click to expand...

If they don't play the game, they shouldn't make the rules.
 
zyzygy said:
I thought it was obvious.
Click to expand...

Well, congratulations. Why don't you take an appropriate title to denote your obvious status.

I hear a lot of people like "captain."
 
RAMOSS said:
If they don't play the game, they shouldn't make the rules.
Click to expand...

OK, I'll ask you a new version of my earlier question: if a priest of a given religion isn't celibate, does he get to "make the rules?"

If not, why not?

And who does get to "make the rules?"
 
Ouroboros said:
OK, I'll ask you a new version of my earlier question: if a priest of a given religion isn't celibate, does he get to "make the rules?"

If not, why not?

And who does get to "make the rules?"[/QUOTEWell, I was actually referring to a punch line from an old joke about birth control.... but it does point out that a celibate priest does not have the life experiences to give personal insight into marriage.
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
Ouroboros said:
OK, I'll ask you a new version of my earlier question: if a priest of a given religion isn't celibate, does he get to "make the rules?"

If not, why not?

And who does get to "make the rules?"[/QUOTEWell, I was actually referring to a punch line from an old joke about birth control.... but it does point out that a celibate priest does not have the life experiences to give personal insight into marriage.
Click to expand...

Knew you'd give the same answer.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom