= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Jiro comments on Humans are utility monsters - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (213)
That's a cheat that is commonly used by creationists who come up with lists of 100 and 200 arguments for creationism. The trick? Make a list containing a lot of very low quality arguments in the knowledge that it's long enough that no one person will have the patience (or sometimes the knowledge) to properly refute every single one. Then latch on to whichever ones got the least thorough response.
It's not hard to point out the flaws in your examples. For instance, Noah did save the animals, but he's saving them as resources--because if he doesn't, there won't be any animals--not as an anti-cruelty rule. If God also commanded that he take some seeds, would you then have claimed that he was concerned about cruelty to seeds? And notice that he takes seven pairs of clean animals so that he can make animal sacrifices.
But no matter which example I refute, you'd just point to another I haven't refuted. And I'm not going to do every single one.
Like I said, I really am sure you can refute these! That is beside the point. I doubt very much you can show that your refutations are what people actually believe about the texts.
I am not arguing the text is true. I am not even arguing that a certain interpretation of the text is correct. I am pointing out that people believe certain interpretations of the text.
This is not like arguing with William Lane Craig about creationism. This is like trying to tell William Lane Craig that nobody believes in creationism.
We may have reached the point of diminishing returns. Arguments are soldiers. Mine need a vacation. Enjoy your day.
I would be very surprised if any major religion claims that Noah had to take the animals on the ark because not taking them would be cruelty to animals. In other words, yes, my refutation is what people believe about the texts. Except I'm not going to bother going through 13 refutations.
How about, say, three? I could probably do three myself, but they would suck because I'm biased. And I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.
(This is completely beside the point, at this stage, so I can understand why you may not want to bother.)