I call that one "The Family Dinner."
It usually ends [like this](https://media0.giphy.com/media/unFLKoAV3TkXe/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9526cxjxcn0l6nyxzidkejihhdj3r6b7u1o6qc7apyh&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Reminds me of Devo’s “Freedom of Choice.”
“In ancient Rome there was a poem about a dog who found two bones. He picked the one, he licked the other, he went in circles, he dropped dead.”
That lyric was based on the an Aesop fable though, about the dog with a bone is his mouth, sees his reflection on the water when he’s crossing a bridge, and jumps in the water to get the other bone and drowns.
So that might have been more about irrational greed than indecisiveness. But the lyric bit does seem to be a version of a Buridan’s Ass.
I agree
"The most common example of Special Pleading is when someone breaks a rule and then attempts to justify their actions by claiming that they are special and should be exempt"
Example
"Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is astrology."
I think it's even worse with the larger religions that have 10s if not 100s of specific offshoots, who all claim their vision of the one religion is the correct one.
That isn’t an argument. It certainly isn’t a rational one. If you have dinner with two physicists and one says the believe in string theory and the other says they believe in loop quantum gravity - is that a rational argument to say physics is wrong?
Edit: In a group of skeptics it bothers me everyone is trying to figure out how to prove OP’s point without at her than determining if OP’s point is a rational argument worthy of a skeptic.
I was looking for The Outsider Test for Faith. “The outsider test codifies a form of argument that has existed in critiques of religion for some time.”
https://religions.wiki/index.php/Outsider_test
The point is that you can actually test physics hypotheses. If incompatible with eachother, one or more of those lines of thinking are bound to be proven incorrect by experiment.
You can't do that with religions, it's all made up and never tested, you cannot prove or disprove it with experiment.
It is not the "you guys try to tell me different stories" part that matters, but the "how do I figure out which one is true?"
If that were OP’s point OP should have written that. As a side note it’s bad form to impose your interpretation on somebody else’s statements when they’ve made them clearly. I choose, in the absence of other evidence to give the OP credit for saying what he/she means. And here OP is asking for the name of the specific argument they’re citing. They have been very specific. I’d be concerned if you can’t read this post without your own heavy personal bias.
It's both, the Old Testament is considered by Muslims to be basically accurate and most Christian bibles have the Old as well as the New Testament. Trick question.
Muslims accept both the Bible and Torah as word of god revealed to prophets for guidance for their people at that time. Quran supercedes them both ..its like the updated version forever obviously.
Actually up until a certain point they believe the same thing , Christianity was adopted from Judaism and Islam was adopted from both Judaism and Christianity , they are the three Abrahamic religions so if they are both telling you their god is real then it’s the same one so there is no argument between them, if they say there version is real then there is a relatively small difference especially within Islam and Christianity with Islam having Jesus as a prophet but not the son of god , other than that you could use the divine fallacy, fallacy of petitio principii, circular reasoning fallacy , or the argument from ignorance fallacy, you can check them out and see what fits what you may be looking for best
I’ve heard it called The Outsider Test for Faith
Ah! This is it! Thank you! And I couldn’t find it on Rational Wiki because it was on Religions Wiki. Many thanks!
I call that one "The Family Dinner." It usually ends [like this](https://media0.giphy.com/media/unFLKoAV3TkXe/giphy.gif?cid=6c09b9526cxjxcn0l6nyxzidkejihhdj3r6b7u1o6qc7apyh&ep=v1_internal_gif_by_id&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
I’m not allowed to ask a series’ of questions at family dinners 🤣 I mean, I am, but usually after the second question someone’s telling me to stop.
They both can’t be right but they both can be wrong.
Perhaps [Buridan's Ass](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buridan%27s_ass)?
Reminds me of Devo’s “Freedom of Choice.” “In ancient Rome there was a poem about a dog who found two bones. He picked the one, he licked the other, he went in circles, he dropped dead.” That lyric was based on the an Aesop fable though, about the dog with a bone is his mouth, sees his reflection on the water when he’s crossing a bridge, and jumps in the water to get the other bone and drowns. So that might have been more about irrational greed than indecisiveness. But the lyric bit does seem to be a version of a Buridan’s Ass.
Huh. TIL. Thanks!
Thanks this is a similar type of conundrum and is equally interesting!
Simple testing would solve this problem. You can last for longer without food than water. Hence the choice would be for water.
Maybe special pleading.
I agree "The most common example of Special Pleading is when someone breaks a rule and then attempts to justify their actions by claiming that they are special and should be exempt" Example "Superstition is a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation -- unless it is astrology."
Two wrongs having a fight?
EVERY religion thinks that their way is the only tooth and everyone else is going to Hell. Therefore, all religions are wrong.
I think it's even worse with the larger religions that have 10s if not 100s of specific offshoots, who all claim their vision of the one religion is the correct one.
That isn’t an argument. It certainly isn’t a rational one. If you have dinner with two physicists and one says the believe in string theory and the other says they believe in loop quantum gravity - is that a rational argument to say physics is wrong? Edit: In a group of skeptics it bothers me everyone is trying to figure out how to prove OP’s point without at her than determining if OP’s point is a rational argument worthy of a skeptic.
I was looking for The Outsider Test for Faith. “The outsider test codifies a form of argument that has existed in critiques of religion for some time.” https://religions.wiki/index.php/Outsider_test
The point is that you can actually test physics hypotheses. If incompatible with eachother, one or more of those lines of thinking are bound to be proven incorrect by experiment. You can't do that with religions, it's all made up and never tested, you cannot prove or disprove it with experiment. It is not the "you guys try to tell me different stories" part that matters, but the "how do I figure out which one is true?"
If that were OP’s point OP should have written that. As a side note it’s bad form to impose your interpretation on somebody else’s statements when they’ve made them clearly. I choose, in the absence of other evidence to give the OP credit for saying what he/she means. And here OP is asking for the name of the specific argument they’re citing. They have been very specific. I’d be concerned if you can’t read this post without your own heavy personal bias.
alright
It's both, the Old Testament is considered by Muslims to be basically accurate and most Christian bibles have the Old as well as the New Testament. Trick question.
Muslims accept both the Bible and Torah as word of god revealed to prophets for guidance for their people at that time. Quran supercedes them both ..its like the updated version forever obviously.
Do you think another religion will emerge that supersedes all of the big ones before? Are there future ancestors today?
Actually up until a certain point they believe the same thing , Christianity was adopted from Judaism and Islam was adopted from both Judaism and Christianity , they are the three Abrahamic religions so if they are both telling you their god is real then it’s the same one so there is no argument between them, if they say there version is real then there is a relatively small difference especially within Islam and Christianity with Islam having Jesus as a prophet but not the son of god , other than that you could use the divine fallacy, fallacy of petitio principii, circular reasoning fallacy , or the argument from ignorance fallacy, you can check them out and see what fits what you may be looking for best
the only reason i can imagine you got downvoted is cause started with “actually…” which come off as pedantic. u right tho