Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

The Atheist Logical Fallacy

Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:53:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

Fair enough.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:08:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.

Some might, I know that I, and many that I know, do not accept it without looking at the evidence.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:43:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:08:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.

Some might, I know that I, and many that I know, do not accept it without looking at the evidence.

That is not true. Everybody has some sort of bias or paradigm. Which means everyone interprets evidence differently to support their stance. And once they accept something, it is very uncomfortable for them to reject it should it be proven wrong. Most evolutionists are evolutionists because they learned it in grade school, where the science text books are not very accurate. They wouldn't like it if they realized that what they learned was in fact not true, so they defend it biasedly. The same is true for creationists.

Many science textbooks are biased and inaccurate. And things are always being discovered that changes the contents of science textbooks. My school had to purchase new biology textbooks 9 years ago because there are certain teachings in them that were proven wrong.

Furthermore, since everyone is biased, writers of science textbooks are also biased. I have seen two science textbooks that directly contradict one another because one of the writers of the first book was a Neo-Darwinist Evolutionist and the writer of the other book was a Punctual Equilibrium Evolutionist.

Evidence does not mean much when one has a strong-headed and biased paradigm. For example, there are very few transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationists use this evidence to disprove the theory of evolution by claiming that there are not enough transitional for evolution to be true. Neo-Darwinist Evolutionists respond that there are a lot but we haven't found them yet. Now, if we haven't found them yet, is there evidence? No! At the same time Punctual Equilibrium Evolutionists claim the fact that there is very few transitional forms only proves their theory that macro evolution occurs rapidly within a few generations.

I'm speaking as an AP Biology student with a very wise professor. If he taught me the way he did in the United States, he would have been fired. He taught me not just the theory of evolution, but several other theories as well and taught me of the flaws and the validity of each theory, because as very few people know, the theory of evolution has not been 100% proven (yet). Then, he let me choose which one I wanted to believe in.

Which brings me to my next point. The theory of evolution is not 100% proven yet. Yet it is printed in textbooks as if it is fact. While it is heavily supported by evidence, there are things that contradict it as well, but that is never mentioned in textbooks because the writers are evolutionists.

Therefore, in a sense, using evidence from a textbook is a logical fallacy because you are basing your claims off of biased sources.

I am an evolutionist, and I openly admit this.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 8:54:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:08:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.

Some might, I know that I, and many that I know, do not accept it without looking at the evidence.

Yes, nor would I simply accept a thing because it was written in the Bible. People who want to learn as much of the truth as possible about anything use every resource available within reason, and then they practice reason itself. :)
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:23:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.
Well that is your hope anyway.

How wide is your brush, BTW.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:25:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:43:32 PM, Defro wrote:
Most evolutionists are evolutionists because they learned it in grade school,

Please provide evidence to support this.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:33:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

Science =/ atheism. The vast majority of the great scientists of history were theists, and the lion's share of those who weren't were agnostics.

I think the real logical fallacy is that atheists deny there is any evidence of anything supernatural, despite the billions of people who have had a religious experience who would argue otherwise. You can't deny something exists just because you haven't seen it personally.
bulproof
Posts: 25,226
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 9:42:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:33:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

Science =/ atheism. The vast majority of the great scientists of history were theists, and the lion's share of those who weren't were agnostics.

I think the real logical fallacy is that atheists deny there is any evidence of anything supernatural, despite the billions of people who have had a religious experience who would argue otherwise. You can't deny something exists just because you haven't seen it personally.

So you believe that David Berkowitz really was being guided by his neighbour's dog?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 10:00:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:42:03 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2014 9:33:04 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

Science =/ atheism. The vast majority of the great scientists of history were theists, and the lion's share of those who weren't were agnostics.

I think the real logical fallacy is that atheists deny there is any evidence of anything supernatural, despite the billions of people who have had a religious experience who would argue otherwise. You can't deny something exists just because you haven't seen it personally.

So you believe that David Berkowitz really was being guided by his neighbour's dog?

He said he lied about that.

Regardless of the details there, however, it is very difficult to call billions of people liars or lunatics.
Idealist
Posts: 2,520
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 10:07:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:23:33 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.
Well that is your hope anyway.

How wide is your brush, BTW.

So you're willing to go out on a limb and say that every atheist is well-educated, conscientious, and would never take a short-cut in order to win an argument? Atheists are human, aren't they?
Keltron
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 12:38:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The difference between science and religion is that science doesn't proclaim itself to be infallible. Science is an ongoing process of discovery. Religion, on the other hand, has taken the position that its theology and scripture are infallible, and is therefore left to twist and squirm in illogical contortions while it frenetically cherry picks itself into meaninglessness.
intellectuallyprimitive
Posts: 1,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 1:33:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

Do you fail to understand why Christians are criticized for preaching the bible versus Atheists permeating science? There are reasons to why Christians are scrutinized on their devout convictions of the bible containing credibility.

The Bible offers nothing utilitarian. Science and the books written to illustrate science which allows an understanding of science textually, does. Is the device you utilized to post your topic here on Debate.org a direct consequence of what the Bible suggests, or was the applicability of science responsible for the device(s) you use throughout daily life? Pertaining to logical fallacies, the exorbitant number of absurd fallacies the Bible contains renders itself an asinine source of knowledge.

Simply put, if you prefer fantasy and fiction, read the Bible. If your desire to understand the world and curiosity to comprehend models about reality are robust, read science books.

The Bible is a redundant piece of literature, and I do not assert that tentatively.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 1:47:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 9:25:28 PM, bulproof wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:43:32 PM, Defro wrote:
Most evolutionists are evolutionists because they learned it in grade school,

Please provide evidence to support this.

I don't have evidence. I'm making an assumption.

I'm an evolutionist and I don't believe in evolution because of evidence because there is also evidence against evolution. I believe in evolution simply because I "believe" in it, much like some creationists believe in god.
Aithlin
Posts: 78
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 2:08:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 8:43:32 PM, Defro wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:08:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 8:07:06 PM, Idealist wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:54:41 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 5/14/2014 7:46:10 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
Christians are often criticized by atheists for preaching the Bible. However, atheists preach ideas from science books.

This is a major logical fallacy in atheism right here.

How is it a logical fallacy?

Bible: Not supported by evidence, not historically reliable.

Science books: Have support from evidence, been shown to be reliable.

The Bible and Science Books are not similar, they are very different.

I don't know why he said "science" books. I would've just said books. But the point, I think, is that atheists often read a thing and then accept it by faith alone, with no real evidence that what they just read is ultimately true.

Some might, I know that I, and many that I know, do not accept it without looking at the evidence.

That is not true. Everybody has some sort of bias or paradigm. Which means everyone interprets evidence differently to support their stance. And once they accept something, it is very uncomfortable for them to reject it should it be proven wrong. Most evolutionists are evolutionists because they learned it in grade school, where the science text books are not very accurate. They wouldn't like it if they realized that what they learned was in fact not true, so they defend it biasedly. The same is true for creationists.

Many science textbooks are biased and inaccurate. And things are always being discovered that changes the contents of science textbooks. My school had to purchase new biology textbooks 9 years ago because there are certain teachings in them that were proven wrong.

Furthermore, since everyone is biased, writers of science textbooks are also biased. I have seen two science textbooks that directly contradict one another because one of the writers of the first book was a Neo-Darwinist Evolutionist and the writer of the other book was a Punctual Equilibrium Evolutionist.

Evidence does not mean much when one has a strong-headed and biased paradigm. For example, there are very few transitional forms in the fossil record. Creationists use this evidence to disprove the theory of evolution by claiming that there are not enough transitional for evolution to be true. Neo-Darwinist Evolutionists respond that there are a lot but we haven't found them yet. Now, if we haven't found them yet, is there evidence? No! At the same time Punctual Equilibrium Evolutionists claim the fact that there is very few transitional forms only proves their theory that macro evolution occurs rapidly within a few generations.

I'm speaking as an AP Biology student with a very wise professor. If he taught me the way he did in the United States, he would have been fired. He taught me not just the theory of evolution, but several other theories as well and taught me of the flaws and the validity of each theory, because as very few people know, the theory of evolution has not been 100% proven (yet). Then, he let me choose which one I wanted to believe in.

Which brings me to my next point. The theory of evolution is not 100% proven yet. Yet it is printed in textbooks as if it is fact. While it is heavily supported by evidence, there are things that contradict it as well, but that is never mentioned in textbooks because the writers are evolutionists.

In this context, how are you referring the world 'evolution?' Are you referring it in a narrow sense, so that it only entails, let's say, Neo-Darwinism?

Therefore, in a sense, using evidence from a textbook is a logical fallacy because you are basing your claims off of biased sources.

I am an evolutionist, and I openly admit this.
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 2:17:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 2:08:21 AM, Aithlin wrote:

In this context, how are you referring the world 'evolution?' Are you referring it in a narrow sense, so that it only entails, let's say, Neo-Darwinism?

Yes I am. Every standard biology textbook uses the Neo-Darwinist paradigm. However, I don't have to specify narrowly on Neo-Darwinism. I can refer to it broadly as well. For a scientific theory to be fact, all it's mechanisms must be explained and supported with evidence. There are two parts to Evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is without a doubt true, we have seen it with our own eyes, and we explain it through natural selection, which we've also seen with our own eyes. However, macroevolution has yet to be explained. The only explanation scientists have for macroevolution is mutations, which generally are harmful and deadly.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 11:02:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 2:17:58 AM, Defro wrote:
At 5/15/2014 2:08:21 AM, Aithlin wrote:

In this context, how are you referring the world 'evolution?' Are you referring it in a narrow sense, so that it only entails, let's say, Neo-Darwinism?

Yes I am. Every standard biology textbook uses the Neo-Darwinist paradigm. However, I don't have to specify narrowly on Neo-Darwinism. I can refer to it broadly as well. For a scientific theory to be fact, all it's mechanisms must be explained and supported with evidence. There are two parts to Evolution: microevolution and macroevolution. Microevolution is without a doubt true, we have seen it with our own eyes, and we explain it through natural selection, which we've also seen with our own eyes. However, macroevolution has yet to be explained. The only explanation scientists have for macroevolution is mutations, which generally are harmful and deadly.

Credible scientists generally do not use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they simply say evolution. Enough small changes equals a big change. You also say mutations are generally harmful and deadly, but aren't some of those subjective?

A grizzly bears cub has a mutation that makes it have white fur, they are in a forest like region. That mutation is harmful, the prey will see the bear coming. It will most likely die, not having offspring.

A grizzly bears cub has a mutation that makes it have white fur, they are in an arctic like region. That mutation is helpful, the prey will have a harder time seeing the bear coming. The bear with white fur will be able to survive easier and have offspring.

Some mutations are harmful, some are harmful but could be beneficial, others can be beneficial.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Defro
Posts: 847
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/15/2014 10:55:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/15/2014 11:02:26 AM, SNP1 wrote:

Credible scientists generally do not use the terms microevolution and macroevolution, they simply say evolution.

I do not see how a scientist can be credible without being able to distinguish between micro and macro evolution. They are very different.

Enough small changes equals a big change.

That is a common misconception in the biology community. Micro evolution and macro evolution are very different. Micro evolution deals with things like modifying your structure. This would be things like making your leg longer or change your hands into wings. This is plausible because the bone structure for mammalian hands is very similar to the bone structure of a bird's wing, and the alleles for this to be possible are already in our gene pools. Macro evolution however, deals with things like growing new structures, structures that were never encoded in our gene pool to begin with. For example a slug sprouting wings would be considered macro evolution. The allele for genes were never in a slug's gene pool, so scientists explain macro evolution with mutations, which is an impractical and explanation.

A grizzly bears cub has a mutation that makes it have white fur, they are in a forest like region. That mutation is harmful, the prey will see the bear coming. It will most likely die, not having offspring.

Exactly, which is why natural selection determines the brown color of grizzly bears.

A grizzly bears cub has a mutation that makes it have white fur, they are in an arctic like region. That mutation is helpful, the prey will have a harder time seeing the bear coming. The bear with white fur will be able to survive easier and have offspring.

This is an example of micro evolution, not macro evolution. Polar bears are white, and grizzly bears share a common ancestry with polar bears, which means the allele for white fur is already in their gene pool.

Some mutations are harmful, some are harmful but could be beneficial, others can be beneficial.

This only proves my claim that people are biased to their beliefs, of course there is nothing wrong with this.

You said that science books have support from evidence and have been shown to be reliable. No standard science book in the world mentions beneficial mutations because there is close to none. Yet, to defend your paradigm, you claim there are, regardless of science books.

The old biology text books used the mutation or sickle cell anemia as an example for a beneficial mutation, because people with it are resistant to malaria. However, it was later revealed that that textbook was incredibly biased and it had to be replaced with new textbooks because while sickle cell anemia makes people resistant to malaria, it also makes people weak and die at younger ages. Of course, the textbook never mentioned this because it contradicted its paradigm.