this post was submitted on 05 Aug 2023

4 points (56.7% liked)

conservative

941 readers

12 users here now

A community to discuss conservative politics and views.

Rules:

No racism or bigotry.
Be civil: disagreements happen, but that doesn't provide the right to personally insult others.
No spam posting.
Submission headline should match the article title (don't cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
Shitposts and memes are allowed until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.
No trolling.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

New York City Using Brooklyn Parks as Migrant Housing (pix11.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

141 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is the specific nature of our dominion.

Yeah, that aligns with what I say.

There can be no evidence showing cause-and-effect for something that we didn't cause in the first place.

And so when we have evidence it shows we did cause it. It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible. You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.

So now all prophets are heretics? Are you joking?

That's not what I said.

You != all prophets

Show me one Christian scientist who believes people caused climate change.

So there are a number of problems with this question. Number one, somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments, so this is a question with a really useless/mislead goal. Second, it's an argument from authority. Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.

This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.

We're not responsible for climate change because it's not the result of our own actions.

It objectively is, the evidence is overwhelming. And we've known this for over a century at this point:

https://www.livescience.com/humans-first-warned-about-climate-change

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems you are starting your argument with the premise that we aren't responsible, and then concluding that we aren't responsible.

My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.

You cannot have your conclusion as one of your premises, because that's just a circular argument.

It's not an argument of any type. It's a humble acknowledgment of He who is in control.

That's not what I said [that "all prophets are heretics"].

What you said, specifically, was, "That's all assuming you know god's plan which is heretical." A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics. Now I'm no prophet, but like any Christian, I maintain a relationship with God and I read Scripture, so I know God's plan to the limited extent He reveals it to me. That's not heresy.

somebody doesn't need to be christian to hold true beliefs or have valid arguments

You're either with God or you're against God. Anyone who sides with Satan cannot be trusted. They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.

Second, it's an argument from authority.

Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

Third, it's a setup for a no true scottsman fallacy, because no matter who I bring up you'll call them a false christian because you've already defined a christian to be somebody who holds your own views exactly.

I don't deny there's a non-zero chance of the discussion playing out that way, but in practice I think there are just about zero climate scientists who call themselves Christians yet also think human beings could have caused climate change. If you find any examples, I'll be rather curious what denominations they affiliate with. There are certainly a few crazy leftist denominations out there that seem to have fully rejected God, so it's possible a few such climate scientists exist. If they do, and you were to find them, of course you're right that I'd have to question their church's Statement of Faith. But that's no fallacy; it's just recognizing that Christianity is incompatible with the premise that humans could possibly cause climate change.

This question is a ridiculous goal post that quite clearly on wheels, able to move the moment I name a name.

My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

My starting premise is God, and with penitent humility, God is my foregone conclusion.

You have no method to reach truth then, because you've shut out the possibility of anybody other than you being correct. That is incredibly vain.

It's not an argument of any type.

It's not a formal argument, but you know what I meant.

A prophet is someone who knows God's plan as it applies to many people. So yes, you claimed that prophets are heretics.

That's not what I said though. I never even used the word in the first place.

They might indeed make true statements or valid arguments now and then, but they can only do so in service of the Beast, attempting to lead others down the road to Hell.

And as a result you cannot dismiss evidence based on who is presenting it.

Nothing wrong with respecting authorities, and trusting their assessments. God is, after all, the Lord of Lords and King of Kings.

You've completely missed my point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

But that's no fallacy;

It's a true scottsman fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

My only goal post is your acceptance of Christ.

Then I would recommend that you familiarize yourself with how logical fallacies work, because you've been using so many of them.