Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Much akin to the way that fundamentalists believe that science is correct with the exception of those theories which contradict the Bible.
Doctrinal convenience is not a factor in determining what is or is not true, it is just a factor in determining what will or won't be believed.
Completely different scenario. Science is based on observation and experimentation for the purpose of the collection of data in order that the evidence becomes so overwhelming that conclusions of proposed facts may come from them. Denying science is to deny evidence.
Denying the Bible of King James when it contradicts what we *believe* to be truth (the Quran) is an entirely different scenario to the above.
I would seek immediate psychiatric help for anyone telling me God told them to harm someone. God telling someone to do this is very scary for the person experiencing this.
Completely different scenario. Science is based on observation and experimentation for the purpose of the collection of data in order that the evidence becomes so overwhelming that conclusions of proposed facts may come from them. Denying science is to deny evidence.
Denying the Bible of King James when it contradicts what we *believe* to be truth (the Quran) is an entirely different scenario to the above.
If it wasn't different, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the same thing.
For an analogy to work, there only has to be common elements or properties, not duplication. The common element in the case before us is convenience. "I rule that everything here is true with the exception of those things which contradict my existing beliefs." That is the dynamic at work in both cases.
It seems like about five times a year I find myself having to explain what an analogy is to someone who is objecting on the same grounds as we see above. Aren't they covering this in schools any longer?
If it wasn't different, it wouldn't be an analogy, it would be the same thing.
For an analogy to work, there only has to be common elements or properties, not duplication. The common element in the case before us is convenience. "I rule that everything here is true with the exception of those things which contradict my existing beliefs." That is the dynamic at work in both cases.
It seems like about five times a year I find myself having to explain what an analogy is to someone who is objecting on the same grounds as we see above. Aren't they covering this in schools any longer?
Sigh... Wrong again. In order for an analogy to work it must be logically consistent. Your first case consists of one denying established fact at the behest of belief, whereas the second case is where one denies the beliefs of others based on their own belief.
They might have taught analogy at your school, but you obviously were riding the short bus to said school.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
