I'd have to say that I have a fair amount of admiration for Keysar for coming back to this thread. I agree that the thread has just about passed its use by date. If I get anymore posts like the ones above from G Z or Stevenlmeyer they will be deleted. They are just harrassing Keysar, not adding anything to the argument.

Make no mistake, a debate forum where anyone can post an argument uncensored, unmoderated, OLO is unbelieveably civilised !!

Earlier someone brought out a point that I connected with freedom of speech. I see significance in that issue and would like to raise it.

First, the "Golden Principle": Under the auspice of freedom of speech in our democracy, attacking an ideology/religion should NOT be regarded as attacking the believers themselves.

Afterall, those believers are free to defend, and counter-attack. Like Keysar hinted in his article - "We should be able to present arguments...even if this is unpopular."

Things become murky when some equate good-mannerism to truthfulnes.

Like someone mentioned he would defend good Muslims against my attacks.
I was attacking a religion, not the people. So why would someone need to defend a believer against my attack??
What defines a "good" Muslim? A Muslim that follows Islam 100% or a good guy that happens to be a Muslim?
If a good Muslim does not believe in the "Golden Principle", is he still regarded as good, (and will be defended)?

Well, it is quite possible many believers do regard an attack on their religion a personal attack. They do NOT tolerate that. They do not accept that "Golden Principle".

This poses a dilemma for an umpire, a moderator.
1 - On one hand, there should be no censorship under freedom of speech (A rational and logical stance).
2 - On the other, demands that bad-manners be curtailed, directly curtailing freedom of speech also. (An emotional outcome).

I accept that Keysar is the GOOD guy and I am the BAD one here.

But truth is, the UGLY ones are actually GOOD guys who do not believe in the "Golden Principle" of freedom of speech.
The BAD ones do not seem to have a problem with freedom and democracy.

Do we actually believe in freedom of speech or let GOOD guys curtail it??

Graham Y: hasty generalization. KT may have earned some points for rhetoric, but the arguments are logical fallacy which sway and fall over like No True Scotsman…drunk on Irish whisky.

…from Peter Suber’s article referenced above:

“Philosophical inquiry may be successful if it is only probative, that is, if it only brings us closer to truth. Respect for the parties is secondary; to put it higher is to put persons on a par with truth, which may be proper for every purpose except inquiry for truth.”

(Exactly stevenlmeyer!)

“Proponents of what are supposed to be true, complete, consistent systems must choose between apostasy and rudeness.”

Note that this was based on western legal systems. In the absence of a “good faith” argument, the debater is lying or being unconscionable.

“ the logic of defending systems is peculiar, and that if we still cherish both the pursuit of systems and the classical forms of debate, then we will have to forgive some question-begging and rudeness. Moreover, if this is so, we should expect a true system to take these peculiarities into account and present a logic in which some circular arguments and rude defenses are permissible.”

The rude proponent who denies this principle by his ad hominem methods, therefore, seems to us to deny an important normative rule; he is not just rude, but also unfair.

Paul L.:. the fact that a person makes inconsistent claims does not make any particular claim he makes false – although of any pair of claims only one can be true, or both can be false. It might be hypocritical, and should reflect badly on character in the absence of a period of growth that results in an “older and wiser” version. This is a form of ad hominem Tu Quoque or, the “You Too Fallacy”.

But KT’s mistake, by consistently pointing the finger back at the bible or the critic, is also Tu Quoque : “Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right” or “It takes one to know one!”

As stevenlmeyer said: Can we not criticize the Qu’ran without taking pot shots at the bible?

If we are aiming for quality debate, this thread cannot logically support criticism of the bible.

Tu Quoque is not acceptable in debate as a defense: which is why we have to keep coming back to the original questions. This is a fundamental principle of reasoning in ethics, and KT’s continual insistence on bringing OT passages before us in this debate is equivalent to cheating.

There is also the small matter of scale KT. Asking a question is simply not the same as gouging out your eye. This is the attack strategy of Tu Quoque, aka the “Ex Concessis” fallacy: pointing out that something is, superficially, just as bad as something else which is presumably unacceptable.

Both strategies involve irrelevance (a deductive fallacy of soundness with a falsehood in the major premise).

The following should be compulsory reading for all OLOers:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

Note that Pericles’ question: “Have you stopped beating your wife?” appears quite prominently under the interrogative form of “Begging the Question”.

Note also that this website is from a group of people that believe in “the nonexistence of all supernatural beings, including the theistic god”.

BB: if you liked Suber (ex-Saturday Night Live comedian), you will LOVE the naturalistic worldview! Enjoy, and feel free to call me up short whenever I indulge in a fallacious argument of my own.

G_Z: thank you!. I’d love the standard of these debates to improve and I believe that BD’s marathon efforts are the fruit of logical reasoning and wisdom, (and as my bias technically disqualifies me from making this call, it is gratifying that others do). Thanks also for the Good Cop/Bad Cop post. There are a few too many moralizers represented here, all quick to suppress a good critical attack.

You might wonder at my wisdom of quoting from an atheistic website… this does not advance the agenda of the evangelical Christian! Notice, we can never ARGUE you into believing the bible. This decision must always be carefully weighed up in the heart. As BD said, when Jesus comes knocking…

katiO, as it happens, i disagree with pretty much everything in your final posts. but this is obviously not the time or the place to engage in that debate.

i'll simply say that i think your posts suggest much too much concern for (and certainty of what is) logical fallacy, and much too little concern for civility. interestingly, i think you do this whilst displaying the very civility you seem to hold in such low regard.

Katie, I'm not trying to police logic, I'm trying to police the way that the argument proceeds. I don't accept your thesis that rudeness is acceptable in argument, unless by "rudeness" you mean saying something which though logically correct is offensive to the person hearing it for social or customary reasons. If that is what you mean by "rudeness" then that is not what is being practiced by the posts that I am complaining about.

I think it is legitimate for Keysar to raise questions of the Old Testament. When he does this he appears to me to be saying "You can pick quotations out of context from the Koran, and I can just as easily pick quotations out of context from the Bible, but that doesn't make you right anymore than it makes me right."