May 20, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Adelphe wrote:

Let me repeat:  the truth of Christianity's claims does not rest on the character of the one advancing them.

Once again, in more generic terms:  the truth of B does not rest on the character of A.

To argue so is fallacious.

May 21, 2012 -- 5:17PM, tfvespasianus wrote:

May 20, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Adelphe wrote:

Let me repeat:  the truth of Christianity's claims does not rest on the character of the one advancing them.

Once again, in more generic terms:  the truth of B does not rest on the character of A.

To argue so is fallacious.

Not just the truth (or lack thereof) or christianity, but of any given proposition. We should all do well to remember that. The classic example is that we make the case that smoking is hazardous to one's health without taking into consideration whether the speaker smokes.

 

I would, however, put less weight behind someone's opinion on dating that had never been on a date (conceding that they could be correct in what they are saying) in the same way someone that does not know how to drive a car might not have as good advice regarding the same as a seasoned driver (while conceding that this is not necessarily true).

I agree--that's why we look at the validity and soundness of the argument itself and not the character of the person making it.  One reason why I, anyway, don't read bnet profiles.  I really don't care where you're "coming from"--your argument stands or falls on its own merits or lack thereof.

Adelphe

the truth of B does not rest on the character of A."

That's more or less fair enough when we're talking about reality, though as to its cred it matters who says it.

But when we're talking about the supernatural, the imaginary, the person who says it is everything.

May 22, 2012 -- 2:49PM, Paladinsf wrote:

"You don’t actually have to say it, Paladin. "I am glad to see you have the guts to admit you are attacking a strawman.

Oh . . . but I made no such admission.  In fact, you left out essential parts of my post so as you misrepresent my point.

The quote, in context, was:

You don’t actually have to say it, Paladin.  You attempted to use guilt by association, that is, some are pedophiles; therefore, none are to be heard since all are instrinsically tainted by association with pedophilia.

You don't seem to be accustomed to people who check your facts and call you on the carpet for misrepresentation.  That's unfortunate because it gives you a false sense of security that you can misrepresent w impunity.  It is my aim to correct your perception of reality, which is clearly unrealistic.

Ex-atheists (or ex-atheist wanna-be)s can be so irritating; can't they?

"Ex-atheists (or ex-atheist wanna-be)s can be so irritating; can't they?"

Not at all. You have ascribed to me a position I did not take and done so with full knowledge such action was both illogical and dishonest. As anyone reading can clearly see. My argument was and IS that taking advice on raising children from pedophiles is rather like taking business advice from the mafia. IF one listens to - and sadly many do - one or more of the pedophiles currently in good standing in the HRCC one is doing something very like listening to the mafia.

The larger point, not stated but implied (which for some reason you ignore) is that the HRCC simply doesn’t CARE that such actions take place. That the actions of this institution clearly demonstrate a greater concern with the reputation and financial health of the institution than the welfare of children having the misfortune of being caught in its clutches.