Total Posts:155|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Logical Fallacies Of Atheism

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 7:48:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).

That is not an appeal to authority. People are the "authority," not methodologies. An example of that fallacy would be: "Einstein did/did not believe in a god, so it is smart to believe what he did (or didn't).

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

All these others are not intended as arguments that religion is false; they are simply arguments that religion does harm-- in addition to positing falsities (which is shown via totally different arguments).
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:07:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Addendum: Nothing about disbelief in gods is other than supported in reality.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:18:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority
False. Is it an appeal to authority when medical practitioners appeal to the outcome of scientific discovery? Appeal to Authority is committed when one points to the statements or claims of a specific individual, and suggest that do to their expertise on the matter, the statements must be accepted with, or without supporting evidence. The standard of science is a need for supporting evidence. Nothing about appealing to science is an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence which is purely logical and appropriate.

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion.
There is nothing wrong with nothing that religion nearly always leads to war, torture, death and persecution. Theists appeal to emotion when they tell us to "follow our hearts", "open our heart to God", or ask "wouldn't you rather live forever than to die and vanish?".

3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
The problem is that these aren't truths. Making someone feel suicidal because their body is operating correctly, leading to a healthy sex drive is not a bad thing. Religion insists that people should consider themselves wicked for having a healthy libido. That's mental abuse.

4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.
But the religious are unable to demonstrate any truth value to what they preach.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
You were only wrong on four out of four.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:40:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

This is interesting. Is this some kind of rebuttal to transfer the wrong to the atheistic mind set instead? I'd rather not go into detail. However, what you are doing here is saying that the obvious problems with religion are the fallacies with atheism, because the atheists have pointed out these issues with religion. It makes no sense.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:45:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 10:40:24 PM, jodybirdy wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

This is interesting. Is this some kind of rebuttal to transfer the wrong to the atheistic mind set instead? I'd rather not go into detail. However, what you are doing here is saying that the obvious problems with religion are the fallacies with atheism, because the atheists have pointed out these issues with religion. It makes no sense.

Beaming with it.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 10:55:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).

Misunderstands what an appeal to authority is. But you are partially right in that science isn't a fundamental philosophy, although it can address questions about metaphysical entities. Such as it does when dealing with time and Big Bang cosmology, or evolution.

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.

The consequences of religion are usually provided independently of arguments for the truth or falsity of religion. I don't think I have ever seen an atheist say 'religion is false because of it's social consequences'. You may see arguments from evil but that's a separate thing.

I would argue that even if a religion is true, that it still has negative social consequences.

3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.

Already addressed. Usually atheists make the presupposition that religion is false when making these statements however in any case. Which it most likely is depending in which one you are talking about, via. pure statistics.

4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Misunderstands the tu quoque fallacy. Self-hypocrisy has nothing to do with that fallacy.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
MEK
Posts: 253
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 12:54:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

I was going to post a strong rebuttal but it appears my non-believing colleagues have already done a fine job. Suffice it to say, I second responses of Fly, Beastt and Envisage. The grudging attempt at illustrating that our arguments share the same or similar logical fallacies with that of our theistic opponents only shows that you are playing a language game which bends / breaks all of the rules of logical engagement - pathetic.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 3:28:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Only a disbelief in the mythical ones.
Bulproof is his own God. ( Supreme ruler)
Supreme rulers exist.
Everyman rules himself with his own thoughts.
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 7:48:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).

An argument from science is NOT an appeal to authority. It's more of an appeal to methodology because science is a methodology, not an authority. Our science logic is from the fact that if you cannot observe something and test it under impartial circumstances, then it's not science and it's not true. Logic is also part of science and science-math=no good.

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>.

That isn't a fallacy. That's true. It was under Christianity that pagans, scientists, and practitioners of magic were persecuted and killed. Somewhere across the globe, gays are probably being persecuted by Christians as we speak... errr.... type.

This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.

*sigh* where are you getting that bu//cr@p?

3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.

You have no objective proof that the Genesis account or Christianity as a whole are true. It's because Christianity is a mind-controlling cult that it harms society.

4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair.

Strawman fallacy.

The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Atheists don't use this as an argument that Creationism is false. We're just trying to get religiots to think.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/5/2014 8:04:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Ignorantio elenchi.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:59:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 7:48:00 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).

An argument from science is NOT an appeal to authority. It's more of an appeal to methodology because science is a methodology, not an authority. Our science logic is from the fact that if you cannot observe something and test it under impartial circumstances, then it's not science and it's not true. Logic is also part of science and science-math=no good.

Its an appeal to authority when you claim you have an argument from science and then don't use science in your argumentation - or and troll beast does - pull a bait and switch and start talking about science in medicine.

If its not an appeal to (not from), then please scientifically prove there is no God.

If you could instead explain why so many atheists on this forum, at this point, start screaming about rape, murder, and genocide, rather than using science, feel free to do so.

You do realize that religious people understand science, so when you say 'science' is what supports your position and then do not actually use any scientific knowledge or argumentation to back up your claim? It is indeed a fallacious appeal to authority.

Science supports God. Therefore ...

I am sure you see the problem now, but only when religious people use the fallacious argument? Shame.


2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>.

That isn't a fallacy. That's true. It was under Christianity that pagans, scientists, and practitioners of magic were persecuted and killed. Somewhere across the globe, gays are probably being persecuted by Christians as we speak... errr.... type.

How does that make atheism true? And atheism is doing the same thing right now in North Korea, and has its own history of violence and political terror.

Atheism is therefore illogical?

So overtime a religious person points out Stalin's murder's, its not an appeal to emotion? Its a factual and scientific statement?

Again, is there a reason so many atheists have such a tough time applying known rules of logic to argumentation?


This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.

*sigh* where are you getting that bu//cr@p?

Its called Social Darwinism, its a well known historical fact.

I am not quite sure that its fallacious to deny something that is well known among educated people, but its certainly not science either.


3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.

You have no objective proof that the Genesis account or Christianity as a whole are true. It's because Christianity is a mind-controlling cult that it harms society.

This would be exhibit A. If you believe everyone with a different fait than you is mind controlled, then you have been sorely and poorly indoctrinated.

It is a classic appeal to emotion.

Again, why do atheists have such a hard time applying KNOWN rules of logic?


4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair.

Strawman fallacy.

Its not a straw man if its true. And it is. Just like Social Darwinism.

Again, maybe you should research what logical fallacies actually are?


The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Atheists don't use this as an argument that Creationism is false. We're just trying to get religiots to think.

Yes, you do. And if you want people to think, you would not be using so many blatant fallacies. You would instead use actual science ... which is no where to be found.

Perhaps atheists should examine the fallacy of conceit or special pleading? The belief that rules of logic somehow don't apply to their arguments based on clear and obvious self deception.
Impartial
Posts: 375
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 5:58:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/5/2014 8:04:46 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Ignorantio elenchi.

Atheists do not have to justify themselves to the religious. You make extraordinary claims that you routinely fail to substantiate. We do not.
To believe is to know nothing.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:36:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 5:58:15 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/5/2014 8:04:46 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Ignorantio elenchi.

Atheists do not have to justify themselves to the religious. You make extraordinary claims that you routinely fail to substantiate. We do not.

Yeah, a belief should exist with no evidence or reason behind it at all!

ATHEISM- 1 THEISM- NIL
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:24:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.

Sorry, but you were actually expecting a rebuttal to nonsense?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:26:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 12:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.

Sorry, but you were actually expecting a rebuttal to nonsense?

Are you calling academically agreed upon definitions of logical fallacies noted in many philosophical journals nonsense? Dear me.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 12:27:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 11:36:03 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 5:58:15 AM, Impartial wrote:
At 12/5/2014 8:04:46 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/4/2014 8:51:41 PM, bulproof wrote:
Atheism=Disbelief in gods.

The End.

Ignorantio elenchi.

Atheists do not have to justify themselves to the religious. You make extraordinary claims that you routinely fail to substantiate. We do not.

Yeah, a belief should exist with no evidence or reason behind it at all!

ATHEISM- 1 THEISM- NIL

No, it is more like this: disbelief should exist when there is no evidence or reason for belief.

Now, as you started this thread with a seemingly honest request for critique, and you have received generous amounts of critique, are you willing to address and acknowledge those instead of making unconstructive potshot posts?
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 1:53:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 12:26:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.

Sorry, but you were actually expecting a rebuttal to nonsense?

Are you calling academically agreed upon definitions of logical fallacies noted in many philosophical journals nonsense? Dear me.

No, just your fallacious use of them.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 1:54:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 1:53:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:26:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.

Sorry, but you were actually expecting a rebuttal to nonsense?

Are you calling academically agreed upon definitions of logical fallacies noted in many philosophical journals nonsense? Dear me.

No, just your fallacious use of them.

Evidently state education has declined since I went through it. But they're not fallacious, as educated ddo members have made apparent.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2014 3:06:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I haven't laughed so hard in months!!

See OP below. The very statement in the title of this thread is a logical fallacy.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof

At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are
prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 5:46:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:06:16 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I haven't laughed so hard in months!!

See OP below. The very statement in the title of this thread is a logical fallacy.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof


At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are
prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Did you read the OP? Its about fallacies you guys use, and you ignored them entirely.

There is this thing called a straw man. Its what you just did. Many Christians believe that the 'entire' earth is not literal. Scientifically, there are ways that this could happen, but few people believe a parable is 'science'. Instead, we believe that, like we see in massive floods in Pakistan, etc. especially in an era before flood control where people congregated in flood planes for agriculture, that it would be very easy for a massive flood ... like those in Pakistan, to wipe out an entire community (The known world to people who did not travel as we do).

Its rather amazing how atheists always take the most extreme and unsupportable positions of a religion rather than the moderate and convincing ones to deal with.

Which is why the Taliban is Islam to atheists.

The Crusades are Christians. Etc.

Perhaps you should read the OP. And the Bible while you are at it.
IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 8:44:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:06:16 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
I haven't laughed so hard in months!!

See OP below. The very statement in the title of this thread is a logical fallacy.


Argumentum ad ignorantiam

Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance". This fallacy occurs whenever it is argued that something must be true simply because it has not been proved false.

Hahaha! You are amazingly stupid, I never said I was trying to defend anything!

Get back on the short-bus now, Billy-Boy.

Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it has not been proved true. (Note that this is not the same as assuming that something is false until it has been proved true, a basic scientific principle.)
Examples:

"Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
"Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."

Note that this fallacy does not apply in a court of law, where one is generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Also, in scientific investigation if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event did not occur.

For example:

"A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth does not have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."
In science, we can validly assume from lack of evidence that something has not occurred. We cannot conclude with certainty that it has not occurred, however. See also Shifting the Burden of Proof


At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are
prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,622
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 9:46:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 1:54:48 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 1:53:04 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:26:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 12:24:00 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/6/2014 11:37:43 AM, IEnglishman wrote:
At 12/6/2014 7:29:28 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).
2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>. This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.
3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.

Theists are so cute when they pretend to act smart, attempting to use logic and reason, but still don't know what they are.

Nice rebuttal there, champ. Sure told me.

Sorry, but you were actually expecting a rebuttal to nonsense?

Are you calling academically agreed upon definitions of logical fallacies noted in many philosophical journals nonsense? Dear me.

No, just your fallacious use of them.

Evidently state education has declined since I went through it. But they're not fallacious, as educated ddo members have made apparent.

No, they are indeed fallacious and it is you who is the one who is guilty of the fallacies and lies.

Your first one, for example, atheists don't use science as an authority, it is used as evidence to support reality. Your fallacy is concluding gods exist, which as never been shown in reality, and then saying science can't explain those gods. A lie supported with fallacies.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Gaming_Debater
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 7:44:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/6/2014 3:59:57 AM, neutral wrote:
At 12/5/2014 7:48:00 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority to which everything must come as a second order concern. This is an obvious fallacy as science cannot explain mathematical and logical truths, or metaphysical objects, such as God(s).

An argument from science is NOT an appeal to authority. It's more of an appeal to methodology because science is a methodology, not an authority. Our science logic is from the fact that if you cannot observe something and test it under impartial circumstances, then it's not science and it's not true. Logic is also part of science and science-math=no good.

Its an appeal to authority when you claim you have an argument from science and then don't use science in your argumentation - or and troll beast does - pull a bait and switch and start talking about science in medicine.

You don't seem to even know what science IS


If its not an appeal to (not from), then please scientifically prove there is no God.

I can't..... because the existence of a god cannot be tested under nonbiased circumstances, so it can be dismissed.


If you could instead explain why so many atheists on this forum, at this point, start screaming about rape, murder, and genocide, rather than using science, feel free to do so.

LMAO. We do it to make a point- that Christianity and God and the Bible are evil


You do realize that religious people understand science, so when you say 'science' is what supports your position and then do not actually use any scientific knowledge or argumentation to back up your claim? It is indeed a fallacious appeal to authority.

It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to methodology. You can't use the methodology with the existence of a god.


Science supports God. Therefore ...

P1) Science supports God
P2) <insert P2 here>
C1) <insert conclusion here>


I am sure you see the problem now, but only when religious people use the fallacious argument? Shame.

What? What problem?



2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion. Usually they will say "you should not be a <insert faith-system here> because they are/were complicit in <insert bad event here>.

That isn't a fallacy. That's true. It was under Christianity that pagans, scientists, and practitioners of magic were persecuted and killed. Somewhere across the globe, gays are probably being persecuted by Christians as we speak... errr.... type.

How does that make atheism true? And atheism is doing the same thing right now in North Korea, and has its own history of violence and political terror.

Proof of that, please?


Atheism is therefore illogical?

That's a fallacy fallacy. You are presuming that Atheism is false because of one logical fallacy that may not even be there. By making an assumption with that question, you are also commiting a loaded question fallacy.


So overtime a religious person points out Stalin's murder's, its not an appeal to emotion? Its a factual and scientific statement?

No it isnt an appeal to emotion. It's a composition fallacy if they use it as justification to say that atheism is evil (which it's not). It is a factual statement, but not a scientific one. It's an intuitive fact.


Again, is there a reason so many atheists have such a tough time applying known rules of logic to argumentation?

Because theists annoy us by not doing it and saying they are.




This is a fallacy because a thing may well be bad- and even have bad consequences- but that alone does not make a thing true or false. For example, Darwinism was used to justify eugenic practices for many years leading up to the second world war. This does not make Darwinism wrong as a consequence.

*sigh* where are you getting that bu//cr@p?

Its called Social Darwinism, its a well known historical fact.

Science does not spawn racism. Unwise and greedy use of it can.


I am not quite sure that its fallacious to deny something that is well known among educated people, but its certainly not science either.

Evolution is science because no legit scientific evidence has been found against it, plus it's observable, testable, and repeatable.




3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.

You have no objective proof that the Genesis account or Christianity as a whole are true. It's because Christianity is a mind-controlling cult that it harms society.

This would be exhibit A. If you believe everyone with a different fait than you is mind controlled, then you have been sorely and poorly indoctrinated.

/:(..... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Says someone who believes the same thing and that is an appeal to hypocrisy.


It is a classic appeal to emotion.

No it's not. It's a logical appeal. The Constitution grants US citizens rights that religion denies them.


Again, why do atheists have such a hard time applying KNOWN rules of logic?

Some because we don't know them and some because we're too distracted by the BS that religiots like you keep spamming.



4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair.

Strawman fallacy.

Its not a straw man if its true. And it is. Just like Social Darwinism.

A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

How religitards represent it:

P1) Rich people are greedy liars
P2) Televangelists like Ken Ham and Ray Comfart are rich
C1) Therefore televangelists are greedy liars

How it really is:

P1) You shouldn't listen to someone who's trying to make money off of you
P2) Ken Ham is a liar who's trying to make money off of you
C1) You shouldn't listen to Ken Ham.


Again, maybe you should research what logical fallacies actually are?

A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic.



The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.

Atheists don't use this as an argument that Creationism is false. We're just trying to get religiots to think.

Yes, you do. And if you want people to think, you would not be using so many blatant fallacies. You would instead use actual science ... which is no where to be found.

Yes we do wheras you do not. You use a bunch of wild guessuing, which is the opposite of science.


Perhaps atheists should examine the fallacy of conceit or special pleading? The belief that rules of logic somehow don't apply to their arguments based on clear and obvious self deception.

We used logic to become atheists in the first place. And we don't think that. In fact, I (personally) think that you and other religitards believe that those rules don't apply to your beliefs.
tabularasa
Posts: 200
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 9:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority
False. Is it an appeal to authority when medical practitioners appeal to the outcome of scientific discovery? Appeal to Authority is committed when one points to the statements or claims of a specific individual, and suggest that do to their expertise on the matter, the statements must be accepted with, or without supporting evidence. The standard of science is a need for supporting evidence. Nothing about appealing to science is an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence which is purely logical and appropriate.

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion.
There is nothing wrong with nothing that religion nearly always leads to war, torture, death and persecution. Theists appeal to emotion when they tell us to "follow our hearts", "open our heart to God", or ask "wouldn't you rather live forever than to die and vanish?".

3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
The problem is that these aren't truths. Making someone feel suicidal because their body is operating correctly, leading to a healthy sex drive is not a bad thing. Religion insists that people should consider themselves wicked for having a healthy libido. That's mental abuse.

4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.
But the religious are unable to demonstrate any truth value to what they preach.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
You were only wrong on four out of four.

You have simply restated the arguments in the original post.
1. I already googled it.

2. Give me an argument. Spell it out. "You're wrong," is not an argument.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2014 10:02:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 10:00:21 PM, tabularasa wrote:
At 12/4/2014 9:18:48 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 12/4/2014 7:38:19 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
It is often asserted that atheism is the most rational world-view and only theists are prone to making fallacious arguments and accepting inaccurate information in order to back-up their beliefs. In this forum, I aim to provide some problems with atheist's reasoning as well, because it is uncharitable to think only theists are guilty of faulty reasoning.

List Of Common Atheist Fallacies

1. Appeal to authority- this is done when atheists talk about science, and use science as an authority
False. Is it an appeal to authority when medical practitioners appeal to the outcome of scientific discovery? Appeal to Authority is committed when one points to the statements or claims of a specific individual, and suggest that do to their expertise on the matter, the statements must be accepted with, or without supporting evidence. The standard of science is a need for supporting evidence. Nothing about appealing to science is an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to evidence which is purely logical and appropriate.

2. Appeal to emotion- often used by followers of the new atheists, this is committed on a regular basis by both the new atheist "four horsemen" and their followers in serious discussions about religion.
There is nothing wrong with nothing that religion nearly always leads to war, torture, death and persecution. Theists appeal to emotion when they tell us to "follow our hearts", "open our heart to God", or ask "wouldn't you rather live forever than to die and vanish?".

3. Appeal to bad consequences- Following on from the appeal to emotion logical fallacy, we have the appeal to bad consequences. This involves atheists saying people may feel downtrodden by sin if they accept religions that tell them they have original sin, but once again, something being bad for others does not make it necessarily wrong. Some truths hurt others, but they remain true regardless.
The problem is that these aren't truths. Making someone feel suicidal because their body is operating correctly, leading to a healthy sex drive is not a bad thing. Religion insists that people should consider themselves wicked for having a healthy libido. That's mental abuse.

4. Tu quoque- this often involves saying that pastors collect and make a lot of money and they therefore do not follow a faith that provides them with a way of being charitable or fair. The validity of a moral belief system is not decided by someone being a hypocrite, however. If you argue for vegitarianism and then eat a Mcdonalds burger the next moment, it doesn't invalidate your argument's truth value.
But the religious are unable to demonstrate any truth value to what they preach.

Any way, there's a small list, feel free to critique/ add to it.
You were only wrong on four out of four.

You have simply restated the arguments in the original post.

I've refuted the assertions in the original post. (It's something called "debate".)
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/8/2014 3:53:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/7/2014 7:44:59 PM, Gaming_Debater wrote:


You don't seem to even know what science IS

So, basically you are a bigot. A really stupid one at that. Do you really think that one has to be an atheist to 'know what science is?' Arrogant much?



I can't..... because the existence of a god cannot be tested under nonbiased circumstances, so it can be dismissed.

No, as a master of science you would know that we seek a test to confirm or deny, and until such time all hpothesis that are reasonable remain in consideration. Particularly when there is compelling circumstantial evidence for consideration.

Atheism fails the same test atheist.


LMAO. We do it to make a point- that Christianity and God and the Bible are evil

Really? Because Jews defend themselves Christianity and the Bible are evil? You do it because all you have, as we see above, is a fallacious appeal to spite.


It's not an appeal to authority. It's an appeal to methodology. You can't use the methodology with the existence of a god.

Yes you can. Christians do it with the Fine Tuned Universe theory. Its called inductive reasoning, which is a HUGE component of science. Whether methodology or not, to claim it than fail to demonstrate it is a clear appeal to authority and fallcious.

Not that your ego will ever concede it though ...



Science supports God. Therefore ...

P1) Science supports God
P2) <insert P2 here>
C1) <insert conclusion here>

Your burden of proof - ours has been met.


What? What problem?

P1) Science does not support God
P2) <insert P2 here>
C1) <insert conclusion here>

You made the claim. Back it up.




That isn't a fallacy. That's true. It was under Christianity that pagans, scientists, and practitioners of magic were persecuted and killed. Somewhere across the globe, gays are probably being persecuted by Christians as we speak... errr.... type.

Really? When did that happen? What year is now? And what happened to dissenting opinion in atheist states under Stalin and Moa? What continues to happen in North Korea?

Witness the Cherry Picking fallacy.


Proof of that, please?

So you appeal to ignorance?


That's a fallacy fallacy. You are presuming that Atheism is false because of one logical fallacy that may not even be there. By making an assumption with that question, you are also commiting a loaded question fallacy.

Do you know what crow is kiddo?



No it isnt an appeal to emotion. It's a composition fallacy if they use it as justification to say that atheism is evil (which it's not). It is a factual statement, but not a scientific one. It's an intuitive fact.

You really are lacking in intellect aren't you. That the purges happened is scientifically validated. Its not intuitive, it based on hard evidence. The appeal to emotion is when you take these proven facts and interpolate them to all atheism being evil ... but YOU can do that to all religions and its fine.

Welcome to hypocrisy 101.


Because theists annoy us by not doing it and saying they are.

Right, your failures in logic are caused by ... not you. Special pleading fallacy.


*sigh* where are you getting that bu//cr@p?

Its called Social Darwinism, its a well known historical fact.

Science does not spawn racism. Unwise and greedy use of it can.

Then explain social darwinism? Explain your hypocritical stance on religion then? <More special pleading.


Evolution is science because no legit scientific evidence has been found against it, plus it's observable, testable, and repeatable.

That has nothing to do with social darwinism. Changed goal post.


You have no objective proof that the Genesis account or Christianity as a whole are true. It's because Christianity is a mind-controlling cult that it harms society.

Sure we do. the Bible is evaluated by historians for accuracy and similiar creation narratives provide a treasure trove of insights into many cultures. There is also the Big Bang (science and all) that confirms that the universe was indeed created.

Do you have any proof that we are all 'mind controlled' or are you simply fallaciously appealing to spite again? That science? Or douchebaggery?


/:(..... LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL. Says someone who believes the same thing and that is an appeal to hypocrisy.

Oh? Now you can read minds can you? Ok, which branch of Christianity to I belong to? Or am I Muslim? Hindu? You have no idea, but here you are bigitedly slamming people as identical when we know there are differences of both minutia and substance between the world's religions.

Its another appeal to spite and a false, obviously, accusation to boot.

Not very good at debate are you kiddo?



No it's not. It's a logical appeal. The Constitution grants US citizens rights that religion denies them.

?????That makes no sense and has no exampes???? Its another appeal to spite from obviusly unthinking indoctrination.



Some because we don't know them and some because we're too distracted by the BS that religiots like you keep spamming.

Therefore the litany of fallacies you are using and unsupported claims are not your fault? Victim? Special pleading yet again.


A strawman is a misrepresentation of someone's argument to make it easier to attack.

Which you demonstrate below.


How religitards represent it:

P1) Rich people are greedy liars
P2) Televangelists like Ken Ham and Ray Comfart are rich
C1) Therefore televangelists are greedy liars

How it really is:

From a bigot. Could you show us this from a religious organization? Main stream please?



Again, maybe you should research what logical fallacies actually are?

A logical fallacy is, fundamentally, an error in logic.

And yet you keep making them.


Yes, you do. And if you want people to think, you would not be using so many blatant fallacies. You would instead use actual science ... which is no where to be found.

Yes we do wheras you do not. You use a bunch of wild guessuing, which is the opposite of science.

Take a look at your fallacies ... hypocrite.



We used logic to become atheists in the first place. And we don't think that. In fact,

Then lay it out. All you did above was act like an arrogant toad. You are, as stated repeatedly, claiming both logic and science, but utterly failing to use either.

Athtarded.

And we see it ALL the time. You aren't special or even particularly intelligent. You are just another unthinking broken record of atheism.