Racist Rejection of the Bible?
Apr 17, 2024 15:11:09 GMT -5
Post by Radrook Admin on Apr 17, 2024 15:11:09 GMT -5
Racist Rejection of the Bible?
Strange as it might seem, someone on Twitter, claimed that he rejects the Bible because it was written by white people. Now, the problem with such a basis for rejection of the Bible is that it constitutes flawed or fallacious reasoning.
How exactly is it fallacious, or flawed reasoning? Well, simple, because cogent reasoning requires that a message be evaluated on its content, and must stand or fall on its own merit, and not on the personal identity, or the race of the person or the persons involved in writing it.
Such a flawed argument is what is called ad hominem, or attacking the man, or the source instead of evaluating the evidence at hand objectively, and is considered unacceptable in a court of law.
Here is how it is described at WIKI:
How exactly is it fallacious, or flawed reasoning? Well, simple, because cogent reasoning requires that a message be evaluated on its content, and must stand or fall on its own merit, and not on the personal identity, or the race of the person or the persons involved in writing it.
Such a flawed argument is what is called ad hominem, or attacking the man, or the source instead of evaluating the evidence at hand objectively, and is considered unacceptable in a court of law.
Here is how it is described at WIKI:
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background.
The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate.
Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate.
Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem