wingedbeast (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
wingedbeast) wrote2015-12-27 12:20 pm
wingedbeast) wrote2015-12-27 12:20 pm
Entry tags:
Tip #45 Don't Assume Illegitimacy
I object to the moral basis displayed by many Christians of a rules-for-rules-sake morality as reductionist and bounding compassion and I get told that I just don't want to have rules at all and that's why I'm an atheist. I say that a deity with the proposed characteristics could be reasonably predicted to do X and I get told that I'm putting God in a box.
Neither of these are then followed up with any argument as to why the morality of the Christian in the conversation isn't arbitrary rules-for-rules-sake or that X isn't a reasonable prediction. They're just given a characterization and dismissed. And, that's for occasions in which I'm fairly certain the respondents were attempting something of an honest conversation.
On the farther end of the spectrum, which could be just trolling but could still be an attempt at honest conversation, is responding to an alternate interpretation of a bible story with "I've heard that twisted interpretation before"... and then nothing. Another declaration of invalidity with no reason why it is invalid, just the declaration and moving on.
Technically, when it comes to this, I could just point you to any website explaining logical fallacies and direct you to ad-hominem and straw-man. This is the age of the internet, if you can easily find those for yourself.
But, I want to deal with what may be one root cause of this particular symptom, the assumption of illegitimacy. Sometimes, dealing with Christians or theists in general, I deal with people who come to the discussion believing that I cannot be operating in sound mind or good conscience and that simply pointing out *that* my arguments are illegitimate is enough.
In terms of reinforcing the beliefs of a third-party audience that already believes as you do, that may be enough. But, if you're trying to convince the unconvinced, no, it's not. We only get convinced that you have a low opinion of us and a high opinion of yourself.
Not all arguments are going to be legitimate. In that hive of scum and villainy known as "comments sections", I've run across someone who said that they refused to believe in Jesus because he was Jewish... Oh, and, Christians, don't go feeling superior, that got responses from at least one Christian who refused to believe Jesus was Jewish. In either case, there is judgment to be made. But, when dealing with people who disagree with you, don't go to that place for them.
If you're going to deal with us as people, you have to deal with the possibility that we are acting in sound mind, good conscience, and with legitimate arguments that need to be addressed.
Neither of these are then followed up with any argument as to why the morality of the Christian in the conversation isn't arbitrary rules-for-rules-sake or that X isn't a reasonable prediction. They're just given a characterization and dismissed. And, that's for occasions in which I'm fairly certain the respondents were attempting something of an honest conversation.
On the farther end of the spectrum, which could be just trolling but could still be an attempt at honest conversation, is responding to an alternate interpretation of a bible story with "I've heard that twisted interpretation before"... and then nothing. Another declaration of invalidity with no reason why it is invalid, just the declaration and moving on.
Technically, when it comes to this, I could just point you to any website explaining logical fallacies and direct you to ad-hominem and straw-man. This is the age of the internet, if you can easily find those for yourself.
But, I want to deal with what may be one root cause of this particular symptom, the assumption of illegitimacy. Sometimes, dealing with Christians or theists in general, I deal with people who come to the discussion believing that I cannot be operating in sound mind or good conscience and that simply pointing out *that* my arguments are illegitimate is enough.
In terms of reinforcing the beliefs of a third-party audience that already believes as you do, that may be enough. But, if you're trying to convince the unconvinced, no, it's not. We only get convinced that you have a low opinion of us and a high opinion of yourself.
Not all arguments are going to be legitimate. In that hive of scum and villainy known as "comments sections", I've run across someone who said that they refused to believe in Jesus because he was Jewish... Oh, and, Christians, don't go feeling superior, that got responses from at least one Christian who refused to believe Jesus was Jewish. In either case, there is judgment to be made. But, when dealing with people who disagree with you, don't go to that place for them.
If you're going to deal with us as people, you have to deal with the possibility that we are acting in sound mind, good conscience, and with legitimate arguments that need to be addressed.