Scriptural theism's shield of imperviousness

[Inevitable Droid]

Back and forthing with scriptural theists has demonstrated to me that scriptural theism is impervious to arguments from logical contradiction.  That of course makes debate pointless, since in any debate, logical contradiction clearly demonstrated should force the holder of the two contradictory propositions to retract one or the other of them - but such doesn't occur due to the shield of imperviousness.  See if you recognize this pattern.  Richard will be my atheist and Clement my scriptural theist.

Richard: You claim the universe is all-blue, Clement.  That's demonstrably false.  Grass is green.  Barring drought, of course, when grass may be brown.

Clement: The sky is blue!

Richard: Agreed.  Here on Earth, any way.  Except during sunrise or sunset.  But you didn't address the fact that grass is green and sometimes brown, which contradicts your contention that the universe is all-blue.  Furthermore, blood exposed to oxygen is red.

Clement: Blood that isn't exposed to oxygen is blue!

Richard: But blood would have to be blue all the time if the universe were all-blue.  Also, you didn't address my grass argument.  Furthermore, the Batmobile is black, sometimes with red stripes, depending on which version.

Clement: Superman's costume is blue!

Richard: What?  Clement, his costume has red and yellow in it also.    

Clement: Smurfs are blue!

Richard: The Hulk is green.  Seriously, Clement, why aren't you addressing my grass argument, my unexposed blood argument, my Batmobile argument, or my Superman's costume argument?

Clement: My mom's Toyota is blue!

Richard: My sister's Corvette is red.  Your style of debate fascinates me.

Clement: My favorite crayon is blue!

Richard: Hmm.  OK.  Never mind then.  How about them Yankees?


What's going on here?  Divergent epistemologies.  Richard's has logical contradiction as the supreme negator of factuality.  Clement's doesn't.  Richard can't hold propositions A and B in his mind at the same time if the two contradict one another.  Clement can.  Because Clement can, all he needs to do is find examples of either A or B, whichever is the one he deems important, let's say it's A.  So long as he has examples of A, Clement is satisfied, and will remain satisfied forever.  Proposition B bounces off his shield of imperviousness.

[Cite134]

Back and forthing with scriptural theists has demonstrated to me that scriptural theism is impervious to arguments from logical contradiction.  That of course makes debate pointless, since in any debate, logical contradiction clearly demonstrated should force the holder of the two contradictory propositions to retract one or the other of them - but such doesn't occur due to the shield of imperviousness.  See if you recognize this pattern.  Richard will be my atheist and Clement my scriptural theist.

Richard: You claim the universe is all-blue, Clement.  That's demonstrably false.  Grass is green.  Barring drought, of course, when grass may be brown.

Clement: The sky is blue!

Richard: Agreed.  Here on Earth, any way.  Except during sunrise or sunset.  But you didn't address the fact that grass is green and sometimes brown, which contradicts your contention that the universe is all-blue.  Furthermore, blood exposed to oxygen is red.

Clement: Blood that isn't exposed to oxygen is blue!

Richard: But blood would have to be blue all the time if the universe were all-blue.  Also, you didn't address my grass argument.  Furthermore, the Batmobile is black, sometimes with red stripes, depending on which version.

Clement: Superman's costume is blue!

Richard: What?  Clement, his costume has red and yellow in it also.    

Clement: Smurfs are blue!

Richard: The Hulk is green.  Seriously, Clement, why aren't you addressing my grass argument, my unexposed blood argument, my Batmobile argument, or my Superman's costume argument?

Clement: My mom's Toyota is blue!

Richard: My sister's Corvette is red.  Your style of debate fascinates me.

Clement: My favorite crayon is blue!

Richard: Hmm.  OK.  Never mind then.  How about them Yankees?


What's going on here?  Divergent epistemologies.  Richard's has logical contradiction as the supreme negator of factuality.  Clement's doesn't.  Richard can't hold propositions A and B in his mind at the same time if the two contradict one another.  Clement can.  Because Clement can, all he needs to do is find examples of either A or B, whichever is the one he deems important, let's say it's A.  So long as he has examples of A, Clement is satisfied, and will remain satisfied forever.  Proposition B bounces off his shield of imperviousness.

Part of the reason why I do not bother to get in such debates in the first place.

[SSY]

The number of times I have been told to "read beyond" what the scripture appears to say, or when actually, the translation used is wrong, and this other translation turns out to work perfectly, have inured me to scripture based debate. As you say, when the first axiom of someone's logic is the veracity of their holy book, nothing can touch them.

[Gawen]

Back and forthing with scriptural theists has demonstrated to me that scriptural theism is impervious to arguments from logical contradiction.  That of course makes debate pointless, since in any debate, logical contradiction clearly demonstrated should force the holder of the two contradictory propositions to retract one or the other of them - but such doesn't occur due to the shield of imperviousness.  

The only reason I keep doing this on public forums is because there are a lot of lurkers out there. Many of these lurkers may be having doubt. Some may even be open minded enough to shelve a particular belief system (even if only for a short time) and actually READ what we're saying. Whether or not they go away and start thinking about it, I don't know.
I'm under no illusion that any theist who participates in our debates will deconvert. And if they do convert, it will most likely take a very long time.

Nah, I'm here for the lurkers.