I have an issue on my hands that I don't know how to handle with class. Let's dive in.
As many of you remember, Chick-Fil-A was a trending theme over the summer. Dan Cathy (the COO of Chick-Fil-A) made some questionable remarks about gay people and gay marriage. Many on the left reacted quite negatively and many on the right stood up for his First Amendment rights.
Fast forward three months. The issue is still brewing in the only place it can survive- academia. I'm on a college campus and there are some students within student government who want to sit down with the ownership of the local Chick-Fil-A and they have some demands. They want to present a letter to the ownership, and get them to sign it, that calls for Dan Cathy to apologize for his remarks, retract his remarks, and promise to stop funding anti-gay "hate groups" (I'm not saying Chick-Fil-A is completely innocent but they aren't as bad as some people make them out to be). They are also demanding that a "pride" flag be placed in the Chick-Fil-A store.
As far as I'm concerned the issue over Dan Cathy's remarks are a First Amendment issue. If this case were to go to court the petitioners would get laughed out. Thus, I think their demands are not only completely unrealistic, I think they should be called out on them. I understand that they are offended but there is absolutely no reason they should demand what they are demanding. How can I politely point out the problem here without sounding like a homophobe? I think they need to be taken down a notch. How can I put them in their place with class?
I know you think you know what you're talking about. That's what scares me.
No, just because there is a definition of religion, does not make it that there is a true or real religion. Same with there being a definition of a fairy princess, but not a real fairy princess.
It proves no such thing. A discussion about a fake dragon does not prove there is a real dragon. We just have a working definition we commonly accept for what such a thing *would* be. Not that it necessarily is.
Just so with religion. We have a definition, and those things that meet the definition are called religion - regardless of their merits or truth. If you want to argue that there are real religions, go right ahead - I'll conceded there are hundreds of them. If you want to argue that that implies any one (or any number of them) are true, there is no evidence in this argument to support that.
Let me guess: You've consulted the voices in your head and they agree with you.
Sorry we're headed down this road and this isn't going to help but:
How do you know your religion is the "real" religion? What makes you right when there are so many who disagree with you? There have been many many religions throughout history so what makes you believe that yours is the correct one?
And like I said previously - that the fantasy exists, does not prove anything about reality. A fake something, does not necessitate a real something - the fantasy can exist on its own.
You simply cannot make the logical deduction you are trying to make. It is based on a flawed premise.
"The word I used was counterfeit."
Only partially correct, you also used the term "false"; as in if there is a false then there is a true, which is not correct and that is where your error lies. There are a lot of falsities that do not necessitate a truth.
1. You said both false, and counterfeit. They are not synonyms, and should be treated differently.
2. You are making the claim that something is counterfeit - rather than simply fantasy, that is an assertion, not a logical deduction. Stating something to be a counterfeit does not make it so, nor can that be used to assert the real.
I was going to bring up simple deductive logic (re: "Modus Ponens") but I don't know if he could follow the argument.
He can't even follow his own inductive logic, why would you bring up deductive?