Stupid religious analogies.

[rageaholic]

I just got done reading a post on that Catholic forum (you'll probably see it on the main page). The arguement was about (what else?) gay marriage and someone said this.

<<Do you believe that the definition of gravity should be changed, too? Some people might think the current definition of gravity is unfair. >>

*headdesk*

Really?  We're comparing a man made construct that we can change to a natural law that cannot be changed?  Of course other people pointed that out, but since they were dealing with Christian Apologists, the biggest bullshitters on the planet, it went over their head.

And I've heard the gravity arguement used in other contexts.  Any time someone points out that a certain rule or law is unfair, someone will point out how Gravity can be considered unfair.  Again, ignoring that we can actually change unfair laws  Another context is with hell and free will, acting as if going to hell is a natural consequence of doing what ever thing the church didn't want you to do.  When in THEIR OWN hypothetical situation, hell is clearly a punishment.  The exact can be used to justify dictatorships.  Don't try to change things, you can't change it, it's like fucking gravity!

These stupid analogies get on my nerves because they're so full of holes, but fundies act like it's the most clever thing ever. 

[calshepN7]

I agree wholeheartedly. I'm sure it has to do with the fact that they don't have any better argument, so they resort to asinine snark. The mentality of "My view is right, I don't have to use your fancy logic and reasoning if I don't want to."

[Star Cluster]

It's like they go by the old adage, "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit."

[Osama bin Bambi]

What about the old sexist, abstinence-only bullshit line that goes something like, "A penis is like a key: If it can open a lot of locks, then it's a good key. Your vagina is like a lock: If you open for too many keys, then it'll break."

It's funny because I can twist it around and say, "A vagina is like a pencil sharpener: If it lets in all the pencils it wants to, it's a good sharpener. Your dick is like a pencil: If you sharpen it too much, it'll break and have to be thrown out."

[Sylvana]

What about the old sexist, abstinence-only bullshit line that goes something like, "A penis is like a key: If it can open a lot of locks, then it's a good key. Your vagina is like a lock: If you open for too many keys, then it'll break."

It's funny because I can twist it around and say, "A vagina is like a pencil sharpener: If it lets in all the pencils it wants to, it's a good sharpener. Your dick is like a pencil: If you sharpen it too much, it'll break and have to be thrown out."

Wouldn't the only answer tho both of those analogies be less sex for everyone?
I have never heard that key one from a religious person, and always as a misogynistic joke.

I admit I have seen a number of face-palm worthy analogies. Thankfully I don't talk with fundies too much.

I think the main difference is a point of perception though. If you honestly see the world as the creation of god, then it stands to reason that you would see things like marriage and gravity in the same light. To them both are unchangeable laws established by god (ignoring that marriage changes a couple of time in the bible, but since when do fundies actually read the thing.)

[Captain Jack Harkness]

Isn't there some weird fundie thing about "Natural Law Theory" or some such crap?

[Star Cluster]

Isn't there some weird fundie thing about "Natural Law Theory" or some such crap?

Yeah.  They think that if there is a "law" then there has to be a lawmaker.  We had a discussion on that a while back here.

[Sylvana]

Isn't there some weird fundie thing about "Natural Law Theory" or some such crap?

Yeah.  They think that if there is a "law" then there has to be a lawmaker.  We had a discussion on that a while back here.

Personally I would like to know how natural laws came to be what they are. Things like why the speed of light is specifically the value it is. There are a bunch of universal constants, and I would love to know why they are what they are. I am probably asking too much though. "They just are" will probably be the best answer anyone can provide.

[Yla]

While I agree with you on the effect, I think you're also engaging in a bit of missing-the-point-ness.

From the strict Catholic point of view, marriage is a God-given law, and no less immutable by Man than natural laws. Thus, the analogy is apt.
If you disagree (as you do), then please attack the presupposition of God-given marriage and its flaws. But the gravity analogy is not 'stupid' or 'dishonest' by itself, it's just based on a 'wrong' presupposition.

The smartest and most honest man of the world can make mistakes if he's operating on wrong information. You wouldn't call him stupid either, then. The analogy is not the smartest ever, but it doesn't deserve to be called 'stupid'.

And before anyone cries foul about me making an issue about pure semantics, remember that it's easier to convince the other side if you're arguing the right point. Attacking the analogy doesn't help if both sides continue to work from different starting assumptions.

[Star Cluster]

Isn't there some weird fundie thing about "Natural Law Theory" or some such crap?

Yeah.  They think that if there is a "law" then there has to be a lawmaker.  We had a discussion on that a while back here.

Personally I would like to know how natural laws came to be what they are. Things like why the speed of light is specifically the value it is. There are a bunch of universal constants, and I would love to know why they are what they are. I am probably asking too much though. "They just are" will probably be the best answer anyone can provide.

Essentially, that's about it.  When the word law is applied to scientific principles, it isn't actually a set of rules as to how something has to behave.  It is more an explanation of how things behave and why.  As for the speed of light, for example, we have found by careful measurements that the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.  We know this to be a constant in the natural universe.  But it isn't a rule that it has to be that speed, just that we have found it to be that speed.  Laws, as in the rule of law, which is a man-made construct, can be changed and broken.  The Laws of Physics, at least as far as our current level of knowledge and understanding, cannot. 

But that is the beauty of science.  As much as we know about the nature of the universe at this time, scientists are always trying to improve upon that knowledge.   And contrary to the fundies notion that science is doing everything to disprove God (which is something that science really cannot do,) it has and continues thru the quest for more knowledge, shown the mechanisms through which the universe could, and most likely did, originate and develop.  As the topic of the thread I linked to earlier shows, science has shown that no god is necessary for all of this to take place.

[JohnE]

@Yla: Even if we accept that both marriage and gravity are god-given, we can choose to follow or not to follow one, but not the other. So the analogy is still bad.

[chitoryu12]

@Yla: Even if we accept that both marriage and gravity are god-given, we can choose to follow or not to follow one, but not the other. So the analogy is still bad.

Not to their logic. As far as the religious are concerned, they must obey all of the laws God set down to be guaranteed admittance to Heaven or to gain favor with their omnipotent creator. Of course, they'll freely cherry pick passages to follow and will gladly ignore certain laws set down by their holy text if convenient to them (which is why Christians aren't following all of the dietary restrictions, wearing clothes with mixed fibers, and aren't casually murdering children with rocks for disobeying their parents). They still suffer massive cognitive dissonance and need to try and justify their behavior (usually by claiming that certain parts of the text are merely metaphorical or just pretending that they don't exist), but they still follow the logic of "God says so, so it is so."

Some would argue that if they were really so willing to disobey particular God-given laws if they would be inconvenient or have moral qualms about them, that they should be perfectly willing to disobey the ones regarding homosexuality. But the fact is that they don't think like that. A fundamentalist attitude is inherently irrational, and their willingness to blindly believe dogma leads them to simply ignore anything that contradicts their opinion.

Simply put, you can't argue to them that any God-given laws can be ignored because they've convinced themselves otherwise. It would be like trying to tell them that God doesn't exist: they literally cannot change their way of thinking to accept what they don't want to accept.

[Auggziliary]

@Yla: Even if we accept that both marriage and gravity are god-given, we can choose to follow or not to follow one, but not the other. So the analogy is still bad.

Not to their logic. As far as the religious are concerned, they must obey all of the laws God set down to be guaranteed admittance to Heaven or to gain favor with their omnipotent creator. Of course, they'll freely cherry pick passages to follow and will gladly ignore certain laws set down by their holy text if convenient to them (which is why Christians aren't following all of the dietary restrictions, wearing clothes with mixed fibers, and aren't casually murdering children with rocks for disobeying their parents). They still suffer massive cognitive dissonance and need to try and justify their behavior (usually by claiming that certain parts of the text are merely metaphorical or just pretending that they don't exist), but they still follow the logic of "God says so, so it is so."

Some would argue that if they were really so willing to disobey particular God-given laws if they would be inconvenient or have moral qualms about them, that they should be perfectly willing to disobey the ones regarding homosexuality. But the fact is that they don't think like that. A fundamentalist attitude is inherently irrational, and their willingness to blindly believe dogma leads them to simply ignore anything that contradicts their opinion.

Simply put, you can't argue to them that any God-given laws can be ignored because they've convinced themselves otherwise. It would be like trying to tell them that God doesn't exist: they literally cannot change their way of thinking to accept what they don't want to accept.

Well it's not like you can disobey gravity. It's not like we see shit floating around for a few seconds and then burst into the flames of hell.

[Sylvana]

Well it's not like you can disobey gravity. It's not like we see shit floating around for a few seconds and then burst into the flames of hell.

The Hindenburg was caused by god?

[chitoryu12]

Well it's not like you can disobey gravity. It's not like we see shit floating around for a few seconds and then burst into the flames of hell.

The Hindenburg was caused by god?

ZING