Theological Rant

[aggienaut]

   So today was like the worst day ever. Everything that could go wrong did go wrong. But at least once again there were crazy preachers on the quad with signs condemning everyone from Mormons to "computer freaks" and "people who speak to their pets more than God."

   Many people like to heap ridicule upon these preachers, however, I must say I think I might have more disdain for the people who ridicule them. Firstly, no one on either side is going to change their mind in these confrontations. Secondly, honestly worse behaviour is exhibited by the hecklers than the preachers. Trying to smother him in the LGBT banner? Not cool man. Michael Giardina's suggestion here? Exemplary of the mentality of bad behaviour I'm talking about.
   Moreover, the crazy preacher guys are professional arguers. They do this all day every day. I don't agree with them, but I find it very amusing to observe as they twist around the arguments lodged at them by aspiring hecklers. The fact that they do argue repugnant standpoint makes it even more amusing and highlights the fact that a skillful arguer can defend almost anything. Not that they are really arguing well in a pure argument form, rather, they make great use of logical fallacies and other illegitimate tricks, but its the failure of their opponents to catch these that is most amusing to observe

   But the greatest fallacy of all, upon which many of the arguments made against them rely, is the misunderstanding of social desirability and cosmic truth. Much of what was argued by the preacher-opponents was based on the social inadvisability of the preacher's ideas, for example that they hated too many people and/or shouldn't hate certain groups of people. The fact of the matter is that the theological nature of the universe isn't necessarily the most pleasant one imaginable -- it is simply the one that happens to exist. Don't get me wrong, every time someone says you should be Christian because Jesus died for your sins, they are arguing the same fallacy -- that because that SOUNDS awesome and may be a relief to you, it therefore might be true. Just because you want something to be true doesn't make it true. God could happen to be evil and twisted and we'd jsut have to deal. If you're going to argue theology therefore, your first point of reference should be the foundation of the theology itself - whether there is reason to believe it is true or not, NOT whether it sounds good and advisable.


   Anyway, now that I've offended both the religious people and a good portion of the non-religious people here, I'm going to bed. My pictures from todays events can be found here.

Comments

[citizene.livejournal.com]

I linked to your pictures, mang.

The LGBT crew looked pretty alright to me -- I didn't think they were smothering ol' Jeremiah, it looked more like a hug. Then a little while later Big J bragged that he had "hugged a homo." So, I rate a calm, quiet attempt at a group flag-hug as better than crude heckling.

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

most of the LGBT people were behaving most of the time, but at one point at least they were really pointedly holding it right in front of him, even when he tried to face another direction, and it wasn't a hug. Like I said most of them most of the time were behaving, but I think at least two of them got carried away in the oppositional fervor at one point.

Ooh, Hate Mail!

[(Anonymous)]

Hey, neat. I made it into a livejournal post of someone I don't know. =)
-Michael Giardina

Penalty box!

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I was doing just what you suggested, and it landed me into the "penalty box" in about 1 minute. I asked the lead guy something to the effect of "What evidence is there for for the existence of God?". He responded with a series of ad hominem attacks; telling me that if I couldn't see the evidence for a God around me, I must be stupid. He subsequently placed me in the "penalty box", refusing to talk to me further, which I guess means that I "won".

-Jey Kottalam (http://jey.kottalam.net)

Re: Penalty box!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yeah my main point remains that its a lose lose situation to argue with these guys.

On any account, evidence of God is somewhat tangent to the point, since evidence of God could potentially validate a whole slew of religions they do not endorse, such as Islam, Zoroastrianism, and their personal favourite, Mormonism.

If I were to actually argue with them I'd challenge the source of all their claims, the bible. I think I heard at least part of a conversation on this topic where they were saying that the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls which had been out of circulation for thousands of years showed remarkable similarity with existant biblical texts and proves the whole thing appeared whole or something. If I were to argue this I'd point out that regardless, this doesn't address the fact that it could have been composed at that time without any kind of divine inspiration and in fact most of the stories within it were plagerized from previously existant myths. Now see among other reasons I wouldn't do this is because I'm not prepared to bombard him with the "ORIGINAL" source of the numerous anecdotes of the bible, because that would require more research and compilation than they are worth to me. But for example, the Easter resurrection thing parallels the myths of Dionysis and Osiris enough that the Aggie would probably fire the Bible's author over it.

And so, I pointedly avoid arguing with them. They've put countless hours into their arguments, and so they simply have a stupendous amount of points which would require more time than it is worth to marshal obliterating responses to.

Re: Penalty box!

[ashael.livejournal.com]

But you must acknowledge the existance of god! The bible says s/he exists. And we all know the bible is true, because god wrote it.

Re: Penalty box!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Damn. I did all that writing only to be so easily summarily trounced!

Also I might add to the previous ramble that not only would it require much more effort than its worth to come up with really crushing evidence to counter every claim, but in the end the whole endeavor would be too delicate, because they actively avoid both appearing to be disproved, but also similarly avoid being persuaded against in their own minds. And so, while you are hammering one point, they will move to a different one, and when you address that one, they'll move to one you delt with twenty minutes ago.... but more likely they'll just resort to making fun of you as they did to some of their more intelligent opponents today.

Not that I mean YOU you, since you're thousands of miles away.

Also, I apparently need to learn to write arguments in less legalistic language with less big words. )= People on the ASUCD Supreme Court itself complained today. d=

Re: Penalty box!

[ashael.livejournal.com]

Yeah I know what you mean. I also try to be aware as much as possible to the major fallacies.

Re: Penalty box!

[revchad.livejournal.com]

"Yeah my main point remains that its a lose lose situation to argue with these guys."

But it is fun to heckle and argue with them. And, AGASA gets some good recruiting done while there.

Re: Penalty box!

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah don't get me wrong, I absolutely love it when they are here. They are one of my favourite sources of entertainment. Aside from the fact that its just plain amusing, I also like it for the same reason most Christians don't, that they discredit Christianity.

Thing is, I think most of their arguments are well supported by literal interpretation of the bible, and thus "lukewarm christians" consistently get their asses handed to them because the crazy preachers have a fundamentally stronger argument IF you accept the Bible as the truth.

[ashael.livejournal.com]

Cosmic truthes, eh? Are those like cosmic rays?

[emosnail.livejournal.com]

Yes