Total Posts:14|Showing Posts:1-14
Jump to topic:

Most common logical fallacy; "Religion"... ?

AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section? What about second and third?

I think straw-manning is possibly first, but I haven't decided on second and third yet.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 1:55:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Also, sig update.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 2:11:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section? What about second and third?

I think straw-manning is possibly first, but I haven't decided on second and third yet.

Easy.. Argument from Authority

Authority God.
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 2:40:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section? What about second and third?

I think straw-manning is possibly first, but I haven't decided on second and third yet.

I think onus probandi is the one I see the most... Shifting the burden of proof. "God of the gaps" which is a type of appeal to ignorance is very common.

Not really a fallacy, but arguments from cynicism are one I see constantly.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:13:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section?

That God is the god as presented in the Bible. That "god" is the anthropomorphic, irrational, ego-centric, vengeful and incoherent imaginary character presented in some obscure ethnic religious script.

What about second and third?

2. That God should be answerable to us. I guess we think that since we invented the concept of a god, it should align with our own limited and self-centered logic.

3. That the essence, and therefor the essential proof of the existence of god must be 'supernatural'.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:46:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section? What about second and third?

I think straw-manning is possibly first, but I haven't decided on second and third yet.

Baseless assertion and/or argument from ignorance..........

Well atheists how do YOU explain it ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 12:34:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:13:38 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section?

That God is the god as presented in the Bible. That "god" is the anthropomorphic, irrational, ego-centric, vengeful and incoherent imaginary character presented in some obscure ethnic religious script. :

What about second and third?

2. That God should be answerable to us. I guess we think that since we invented the concept of a god, it should align with our own limited and self-centered logic. :

3. That the essence, and therefor the essential proof of the existence of god must be 'supernatural'.

What logical fallacies would you equate those too?? It would strike me that your #1 is a Staw-Man in itself.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 8:43:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 12:34:55 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:13:38 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section?

That God is the god as presented in the Bible. That "god" is the anthropomorphic, irrational, ego-centric, vengeful and incoherent imaginary character presented in some obscure ethnic religious script. :

What about second and third?

2. That God should be answerable to us. I guess we think that since we invented the concept of a god, it should align with our own limited and self-centered logic. :

3. That the essence, and therefor the essential proof of the existence of god must be 'supernatural'.

What logical fallacies would you equate those too?? It would strike me that your #1 is a Staw-Man in itself.

Everything is a "straw man" at some point. We humans don't possess total or perfect knowledge. Most of what we "know" is an assemblage if ideas based on experience, memory, supposition, and desire. Like many of our concepts, "God" both is and is not a "straw man". But then so am I. In that "I" am a collection of ideas in various people's heads, none of which are the same. And none of which comprehend the whole phenomena of 'me'. Not even my own idea of me does that. The point being that inaccurate conceptualizations of reality and truth are what we humans have to live with, because they're all we have.

So that when a human being uses the concept of "God" as a part of their concept of truth and reality, it's no more or less a "straw man" that someone who uses the idea of of quantum physics as a part of their concept of reality and truth. It's all experience, become ideas, being collected and assembled into an overall concept of reality and truth. That's just what we humans do.

The mistake, I think, is that we very often do not realize that this is what we are doing. And so we "fall for" our own collage of ideas, and then presume that our conception of reality and truth IS reality and IS the truth. When that happens, we can no longer recognize why and how others have come to conceptualize reality and truth in ways different from our own, or that their way is as valid for them as our's is valid for us.

As a result, both theists and atheists alike think "God" is the god depicted by the Bible. And yet throughout human history, there have been many different conceptualizations of god. And there still are.

And both theists and atheists alike think that god should be made to answer for not aligning with their specific conception of god. Because of course they are assuming that their conception of god is what god must be. We don't even consider that god may be something else entirely, and that's why god does not answer to our expectations. And I think this is by far the most common mistake that both theists and atheists make when contemplating or discussion the issue of the existence of "God".
SemperVI
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 9:05:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The nature of this thread is a logical fallacy. Injecting logical arguments in a faith based belief is the most common of these fallacies.

Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer.

Justifying the conflict between faith and logic is a fool"s errand.
rroberts
Posts: 27
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 10:05:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
" Faith and reason are both sources of authority upon which beliefs can rest. Reason generally is understood as the principles for a methodological inquiry, whether intellectual, moral, aesthetic, or religious. Thus is it not simply the rules of logical inference or the embodied wisdom of a tradition or authority. Some kind of algorithmic demonstrability is ordinarily presupposed. Once demonstrated, a proposition or claim is ordinarily understood to be justified as true or authoritative. Faith, on the other hand, involves a stance toward some claim that is not, at least presently, demonstrable by reason. Thus faith is a kind of attitude of trust or assent. As such, it is ordinarily understood to involve an act of will or a commitment on the part of the believer. Justifying the conflict between faith and logic is a fool's errand."

Well stated. But I still have trouble when logic and reason shows some faith based ideas are false. And I've yet to see a faith based belief show that a logical argument is false.

rr
Martley
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 1:22:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 8:43:00 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/14/2014 12:34:55 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:13:38 AM, PureX wrote:
At 5/14/2014 1:52:18 AM, AlbinoBunny wrote:
... section. Sorry the title didn't let me fill it completely.

Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section?

That God is the god as presented in the Bible. That "god" is the anthropomorphic, irrational, ego-centric, vengeful and incoherent imaginary character presented in some obscure ethnic religious script. :

What about second and third?

2. That God should be answerable to us. I guess we think that since we invented the concept of a god, it should align with our own limited and self-centered logic. :

3. That the essence, and therefor the essential proof of the existence of god must be 'supernatural'.

What logical fallacies would you equate those too?? It would strike me that your #1 is a Staw-Man in itself.

Everything is a "straw man" at some point.:

No it isn't! Thais ridiculous. I and many others are perfectly capable of arguing any topic without committing a Straw Man. A Staw Man is a mistake that you as the arguer makes... its not inherent in the topics, stick to the issue and you will not create a staw-man.

We humans don't possess total or perfect knowledge. Most of what we "know" is an assemblage if ideas based on experience, memory, supposition, and desire. Like many of our concepts, "God" both is and is not a "straw man". But then so am I. In that "I" am a collection of ideas in various people's heads, none of which are the same. And none of which comprehend the whole phenomena of 'me'. Not even my own idea of me does that. The point being that inaccurate conceptualizations of reality and truth are what we humans have to live with, because they're all we have.

So that when a human being uses the concept of "God" as a part of their concept of truth and reality, it's no more or less a "straw man" that someone who uses the idea of of quantum physics as a part of their concept of reality and truth. It's all experience, become ideas, being collected and assembled into an overall concept of reality and truth. That's just what we humans do. :

I think you have proven you don't know what a Straw-Man is. First off, all this philosophical stuff is a red- herring. A Straw-Man is misrepresentation of your opponents argument in order to make it easier for you to refute, or to realigning the argument to fit your agenda... it has nothing to do with god or our concepts of god or ourselves. To avoid committing a Straw Man you simply need to given credit to your oppositions points of view and carefully articulate the positions flaws. To outline your oppositions "flaws" before even starting a debate is a sure ticket to a Straw Man.

The mistake, I think, is that we very often do not realize that this is what we are doing. And so we "fall for" our own collage of ideas, and then presume that our conception of reality and truth IS reality and IS the truth. When that happens, we can no longer recognize why and how others have come to conceptualize reality and truth in ways different from our own, or that their way is as valid for them as our's is valid for us.:

In addition to my above points, you are creating an argument from omniscience which is another fallacy. The only way to prove or disprove your position one would need to have omniscience over everyone's beliefs and knowledge. There is no way of proving, disproving, quantifying or equating anything your claiming. However, one wouldn't have to as the position is illogical and is therefore void.

As a result, both theists and atheists alike think "God" is the god depicted by the Bible. And yet throughout human history, there have been many different conceptualizations of god. And there still are. :

This makes no sense... Your position is that there have and still are many conceptualizations of "god" (whatever that is) and yet ALL theists and ALL atheists think God is the god depicted in the Bible? Are you drawing some conclusion between those exposed to the Christian Bible and either chose to believe or reject that concept of God, and those not exposed to the christian bible and their concepts of "god"?

And both theists and atheists alike think that god should be made to answer for not aligning with their specific conception of god. Because of course they are assuming that their conception of god is what god must be. We don't even consider that god may be something else entirely, and that's why god does not answer to our expectations. And I think this is by far the most common mistake that both theists and atheists make when contemplating or discussion the issue of the existence of "God".:

I don't fall into this circular conception of yours... I would be more than happy to formally debate this topic with you anytime.
A Black Belt is a white belt who never quit.

The best time to do something was 20 years ago.... the second best to do something is now.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 3:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 1:22:27 PM, Martley wrote:
At 5/15/2014 8:43:00 AM, PureX wrote:

Everything is a "straw man" at some point.:

No it isn't! Thais ridiculous. I and many others are perfectly capable of arguing any topic without committing a Straw Man. A Staw Man is a mistake that you as the arguer makes... its not inherent in the topics, stick to the issue and you will not create a staw-man.

A "straw man" is a deliberate misrepresentation of an opponent's argument that's designed to be easy to thwart. And I agree with AlbonoBunny's assertion that this is a common practice on the "Religion section". But I don't think it's as common as some other fallacies commonly engaged in on the Religion section.

We humans don't possess total or perfect knowledge. Most of what we "know" is an assemblage if ideas based on experience, memory, supposition, and desire. Like many of our concepts, "God" both is and is not a "straw man". But then so am I. In that "I" am a collection of ideas in various people's heads, none of which are the same. And none of which comprehend the whole phenomena of 'me'. Not even my own idea of me does that. The point being that inaccurate conceptualizations of reality and truth are what we humans have to live with, because they're all we have.

So that when a human being uses the concept of "God" as a part of their concept of truth and reality, it's no more or less a "straw man" that someone who uses the idea of of quantum physics as a part of their concept of reality and truth. It's all experience, become ideas, being collected and assembled into an overall concept of reality and truth. That's just what we humans do. :

I think you have proven you don't know what a Straw-Man is. First off, all this philosophical stuff is a red- herring ... it has nothing to do with god or our concepts of god or ourselves.

It has everything to do with our concepts of God and of ourselves, and of everything else.

To avoid committing a Straw Man you simply need to given credit to your oppositions points of view and carefully articulate the positions flaws. To outline your oppositions "flaws" before even starting a debate is a sure ticket to a Straw Man.

If you were paying attention as you were reading my post, you would see that I had already left off the fallacy of the straw man, and had moved onto what I believe is the more common fallacy. And that is the blind acceptance of a specific religious god-concept as being the paradigm for all theistic god concepts.

The mistake, I think, is that we very often do not realize that this is what we are doing. And so we "fall for" our own collage of ideas, and then presume that our conception of reality and truth IS reality and IS the truth. When that happens, we can no longer recognize why and how others have come to conceptualize reality and truth in ways different from our own, or that their way is as valid for them as our's is valid for us.:

In addition to my above points, you are creating an argument from omniscience which is another fallacy. The only way to prove or disprove your position one would need to have omniscience over everyone's beliefs and knowledge. There is no way of proving, disproving, quantifying or equating anything your claiming. However, one wouldn't have to as the position is illogical and is therefore void.

Actually, this is not an argument that requires omniscience at all. In fact, it's an argument based on our lack of omniscience. Because the crux of my assertion is that because we humans don't know everything, we can't know how what we don't know would change what we think we do know, if we were to know come to it. Thus, all human knowledge is presumed. In this way it's quite similar to the 'straw man'.

As a result, both theists and atheists alike think "God" is the god depicted by the Bible. And yet throughout human history, there have been many different conceptualizations of god. And there still are. :

This makes no sense... Your position is that there have and still are many conceptualizations of "god" (whatever that is) and yet ALL theists and ALL atheists think God is the god depicted in the Bible? Are you drawing some conclusion between those exposed to the Christian Bible and either chose to believe or reject that concept of God, and those not exposed to the christian bible and their concepts of "god"?

You have a point, here, except that you overlooked the opening post at the top of this thread; that I was actually responding to: "Which logical fallacy do you think is the most common in the "Religion" section?"

I was responding to that specific question, and therefor was referring to the specific theists and atheists "in the Religion section", and not all theists and atheists, everywhere. Here, they all just seem to presume that "God" is the god as depicted in the Bible.

And both theists and atheists alike think that god should be made to answer for not aligning with their specific conception of god. Because of course they are assuming that their conception of god is what god must be. We don't even consider that god may be something else entirely, and that's why god does not answer to our expectations. And I think this is by far the most common mistake that both theists and atheists make when contemplating or discussion the issue of the existence of "God".:

I don't fall into this circular conception of yours... I would be more than happy to formally debate this topic with you anytime.

Well, it doesn't appear that you've understood me very clearly. And I wasn't implying that everyone here falls into the fallacies I've noted. But if you have a subject you'd like to discuss, I'm always open to it. I'd enjoy the discourse as long as we can stay civil. And I will happily admit when I'm wrong if I can see it.