I don't know, I am torn between "affirming the consequent," "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or "cargo cult"...
Which one is it?
We should, however, be careful not to fall into "reductio ad hitlerum" in our analogies, even for a good cause.
:-) Cheers!
Oh, BTW, could Zeus make a lightning bolt, whose electric field is so big that it prevents him from making lightning bolts?
2007-01-08 17:14:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by counterfactual 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are saying "just because Troy existed, it doesn't mean the Iliad is true" in response to this, apply the same thought to your religion. That is the point of this question.
2007-01-08 18:19:46
·
answer #2
·
answered by Amanda D 3
·
2⤊
0⤋
just because they found remains of troy, doesn't mean that the WHOLE iliad is true. it means that troy existed. nothing more. besides, lightning is created by friction and electricity in the air.
2007-01-08 18:07:45
·
answer #3
·
answered by happyinblue 3
·
0⤊
3⤋
One proof doesn't make the whole true. "If" Zeus exists, where is he? Atheists want to know.
2007-01-08 18:12:50
·
answer #4
·
answered by n9wff 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hey.... that's proof! Everyone should recognize this and worship Zeus. Then again, they'll probably argue it away while at the same time claiming that arguments that work against Zeus OBVIOUSLY don't work against Yahweh because, duh, THEIR god exists and the Iliad god doesn't!
2007-01-08 18:03:21
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
5⤊
1⤋
Its a natural effect.
2007-01-08 18:03:17
·
answer #6
·
answered by tony c 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Hmm, a rehash of the Christian arguments.
2007-01-08 18:02:33
·
answer #7
·
answered by nondescript 7
·
1⤊
3⤋
yes.
2007-01-08 18:05:42
·
answer #8
·
answered by Barabas 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
lol. Well put.
2007-01-08 18:05:27
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋