Difference between revisions of "Talk:Debating Religious Topics"
From NSwiki, the NationStates encyclopedia.
Frisbeeteria (Talk | contribs) (be bold) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The above is a logical fallacy. If no coherent evidence based argument can be made in its favour, then it is not valid for an objective debate. What the author intended to say, was that reason does not trump faith. This ineloquent paragraph makes it seem as if there is no way to argue against the omnipotence of Colin Powell, whereas, due to lack of evidence to support such a claim, the lack of evidence can indeed be used to argue against such an assertion, as, in debating, an assertion without evidence cannot stand. | The above is a logical fallacy. If no coherent evidence based argument can be made in its favour, then it is not valid for an objective debate. What the author intended to say, was that reason does not trump faith. This ineloquent paragraph makes it seem as if there is no way to argue against the omnipotence of Colin Powell, whereas, due to lack of evidence to support such a claim, the lack of evidence can indeed be used to argue against such an assertion, as, in debating, an assertion without evidence cannot stand. | ||
| + | : A) Sign your posts, and B) [[NSwiki:Be bold|Be bold]] in editing. Just because this came from the forums doesn't mean it can't be altered. Fix it! [[User:Frisbeeteria|→ Fris]] [[User talk:Frisbeeteria|Θ<small>''talk''</small>]] 14:17, 30 Nov 2004 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 10:17, 30 November 2004
The unprovable nature of religions (or atheism) does not detract from their validity.
The above is a logical fallacy. If no coherent evidence based argument can be made in its favour, then it is not valid for an objective debate. What the author intended to say, was that reason does not trump faith. This ineloquent paragraph makes it seem as if there is no way to argue against the omnipotence of Colin Powell, whereas, due to lack of evidence to support such a claim, the lack of evidence can indeed be used to argue against such an assertion, as, in debating, an assertion without evidence cannot stand.
