New Thinker

[Bethany311]

poisoning the well / ad hominem.

Appeal to consequences & Non sequitur.

Excellent. Great examples.

Here's something I took from my other thread, "How Can I know the "god" I Interact With and Hope In Is the Real God?"

Someone commented:
"Well, if you're going to apply the scientific method to this topic (or any topic), you'd have to first acknowledge that there is in fact a "consensus" on the topic of how many "God(s)" there might be. Monotheism has replaced polytheism in terms of the "consensus" among humans. We tend to agree that there is but one God, and there are many "religions" used to describe that single being."

"You seem to be confusing the concept of monotheism and multiple religions, with polytheism, and the concept of multiple Gods. Whatever you're hearing is simply "God", or not, but you don't have multiple "gods" to hear from."

Could these statements be categorized as non sequitur as well?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"Well, if you're going to apply the scientific method to this topic (or any topic), you'd have to first acknowledge that there is in fact a "consensus" on the topic of how many "God(s)" there might be."

Yes, I think that's a non sequitur. Applying the scientific method has nothing to do with acknowledging a consensus of opinion.

 

[ScottA]

poisoning the well / ad hominem.

Appeal to consequences & Non sequitur.

A person who is without reason, is incapable of reason, and will be stopped short of the whole truth...and even invent their own definitions for things they do not understand. But those who have reason, are equipped to go further.

 

[bhsmte]

A person who is without reason, is incapable of reason, and will be stopped short of the whole truth...and even invent their own definitions for things they do not understand. But those who have reason, are equipped to go further.

You seem to be describing someone we are all familiar with.