why do traditional arguments fail?

Answer 1

Arguments are non productive, and no one wins either a traditional or contemporary argument. It is just a waste of energy and is an attempt for domination. The failure results from the no win situation. Dialog, and the exchange of ideas result in a greater understanding of the personal differences that occur when disagreement happens. Negotiation will result in a win win situation, and everyone will leave with face.

Answer 2

Because they've been refuted by traditional refutations. Things like Pascal's Wager, St. Anselm's Ontological Proof, and the First Cause argument have been beaten to death about a zillion times and only really, really naive people bother to bring those up again.

Creationists are STILL claiming that evolution is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics even though anybody with a high-school education in physics can easily refute that argument without breaking into a sweat...

Answer 3

Because tradition implies old, outdated and possibly disproved or no longer respect arguments, that have been surpassed by fresh thinking, novel, exciting an better arguements.

Also because the older an argument gets, the more arguments against it develop.

I LOL at the people bringing Jesus and the Bible into this topic. Seriously, how is this question related to either? It just goes to show that so many people cannot think for themselves and have to get all their ideas from an extremely old book.

And if Jesus preached against tradition then why are you still reading a 2000 year old book? Seems a bit traditional to me.

Answer 4

Because people wised up to the so-called traditions and owned those arguments many years ago.

Answer 5

Very few people look deeply into any issue these days. They are sufficed by simply asking a question in a forum such as this knowing that will most likely not get many serious answers. There are many respectable scholars who address many of the issues presented in forums like these, unfortunately most of them will remain unknown. Most people don't want to know about any educated arguments as it makes it difficult to get layed. It is much easier to ignore your conscience once you tell yourself there is no God to condemn whatever I feel like doing. Some are honest enough to admit this. Such as this quote by Aldous Huxley, grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley(Darwins Bulldog). " I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently I assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. Most ignorance is invisible ignorance. We don't know because we don't want to know". He also added the philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem of metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he should personally not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in a way they see as most advantageous to themselves...For myslef the philosophy of meaninglessness was an instrument of liberation, political, ecnomical and sexual

Answer 6

I would say that dogmas evolve to counter other dogmas. Traditional arguments can be used forcefully and effectively when the person using them has come to understand the reasoning involved behind then.

Sadly, most debate consists of dogmatic exchanges.

Answer 7

Tradition is no more than the continuation of flawed concepts of imaginary rules and restrictions that no one even remembers the original purpose for.

Answer 8

Who says they fail?
What are "traditional" arguments, anyhow?
Why are there any aguments at all?
Can't we all just get along!?!!

Answer 9

Jesus taught against tradition.

See Mark chapter 7.

Yes, read the whole chapter.

Pastor Art

Answer 10

Because they're placed ahead of the truth. Jesus Christ is the truth.