Logical Fallacy

[WonderAndAwe]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios? Things like tossing out “No True Scottsman” if you decry people that foster genuine hatred for gays while saying that they are Catholic as not being good Catholics or whatever.

 

[GEddie]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios? Things like tossing out “No True Scottsman” if you decry people that foster genuine hatred for gays while saying that they are Catholic as not being good Catholics or whatever.

No, but debating atheists has not been a major part of my life.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Ositokc]

When it comes to religion and politics especially, you find a whole lot of people who will pretty much never change their mind, they are stuck in their ways. The best thing to do is not talk to these people about religion or politics. Give your opinion, listen to theirs, and agree to disagree. However, if you are both open to new ideas and actually having a civil debate, you should start with finding common ground or even better, try to argue the other person’s opinion.

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

Whenever I have had people joke about my faith ,
I tell them it’s not something you can’t learn from books , not something I can show you in factual evidence, nothing I can put on a table for all to see and dissect bit by bit,
It’s a spiritual thing , something you must discover for your self,
How can you explain the colors and shape of a rainbow to a sparrow ?

 

[MyNameIsDan]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios? Things like tossing out “No True Scottsman” if you decry people that foster genuine hatred for gays while saying that they are Catholic as not being good Catholics or whatever.

No, I have not. But I am generally careful with how I explain something. I didn’t even know what the “No True Scotsman” fallacy is until now. I had to Google it. If someone were throwing around complicated words, I’d call them out on it. If they think their position is right and they understand their position well, they should be able to explain it simply. Besides that, the names of logical fallacies aren’t important; it’s the logic itself. But I digress.

The only way to know if you committed a logical fallacy is to know the logical fallacy - not necessarily by name, but the logical reasoning behind it. Whether or not you know the fallacy’s name, get him to explain to you why he thinks something you said is a logical fallacy. In proper discourse, I think this is acceptable. It is not acceptable for him to deny you the reason why he thinks your argument is fallacious because he may misunderstand what you’re saying. Ask him “What, exactly, do you understand to be a fallacy?” He can’t just throw around names of fallacies and deny the opposition (you) reasons why he thinks you are making a fallacious argument. In any discussion, it is important that both people understand each other to get closer to the truth. Therefore, it is no use for him to throw around names of fallacies; he should be explaining where the fallacy is so that you either see the fallacy or you can rectify his understanding (it could happen he interpreted it differently or you weren’t clear, etc). When he explains, at least you have more room to work with. Reminding him to be humble might help.

It may even happen that when he explains the logical fallacy, you might catch him making an illogical fallacy. Maybe he made an assumption about your argument that you did not make. I Googled the “No True Scotsman” fallacy. This would only apply if you are talking about a “true” sort of thing; a “true” Catholic, a “true” so and so. If you did not say anything of this sort, then you can correct him.

 

[StrawberryJam]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios? Things like tossing out “No True Scottsman” if you decry people that foster genuine hatred for gays while saying that they are Catholic as not being good Catholics or whatever.

Yes, I have come across non theists as you describe.
I am not sure you understand your objections, but I am happy to help you to continue to use scare quotes when discussing those who are not theists.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . “enlightened Athiest” . . . logical fallacies? . . . hatred for gays . . . good Catholics . . …

Except for the forums sometimes, where you can easily pull out of it, I pretty much never actually enter into an argument.
I prefer to understand what the person is talking about, how they see things and where we might find common ground.

As to atheism, if taken at its word, there is ultimately no morality and no meaning.

But, in the quote above we see how the person, while talking the talk, does not does not walk the walk.
The discussion is based on the premise that there exists a truth and that it can be known, better by some than others, through the use of a rational mind.
There is also the belief that there exists good and evil.

Trying to get at the basis of these assumptions offers an opportunity to connect, learn from each other and arrive at a deeper truth.

That said, the type of person you appear to be describing is usually not as bright as they would wish to portray themselves and not that interested in discovering truth.
I find if someone is simply using the encounter to feel superior and fight, well it is a waste of my time. So, I politely excuse myself.

BTW: “WonderAndAwe” - Isn’t though!!! - Use logic all you want but bottom-line, truly THIS IS AMAZING!!!

 

[Ignatius]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios? Things like tossing out “No True Scottsman” if you decry people that foster genuine hatred for gays while saying that they are Catholic as not being good Catholics or whatever.

The best way to counter is to be informed so you can 1) avoid giving fallacious explanations, and 2) make sure he is applying his judgement of what is a fallacy correctly. To learn what the actual fallacies are and see if he is applying them correctly, here are a couple of links to begin your study of fallacies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

triviumpursuit.com/articles/formal_informal_fallacies.php

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Atheists believe there is no God.

They say theists commit the fallacy of “begging the question” when they say there is a God.

Why is saying there is no God also not the fallacy of “begging the question”?

 

[livingwordunity]

Not even if God introduced Himself would it convince a hardened atheist to believe. The reason is they choose not to believe because believing in God means having to change their ways. And they don’t want to change. It’s only if they decide to give up their pride and earnestly seek God that they will find that God was there all along but that they were too blind to see.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The best way to counter is to be informed so you can 1) avoid giving fallacious explanations, and 2) make sure he is applying his judgement of what is a fallacy correctly. To learn what the actual fallacies are and see if he is applying them correctly, here are a couple of links to begin your study of fallacies.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

triviumpursuit.com/articles/formal_informal_fallacies.php

 

[WonderAndAwe]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Not even if God introduced Himself would it convince a hardened atheist to believe. The reason is they choose not to believe because believing in God means having to change their ways. And they don’t want to change. It’s only if they decide to give up their pride and earnestly seek God that they will find that God was there all along but that they were too blind to see.

So how do you answer them when they accuse you of doing the same and reword what you just posted to echo from the other side?

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Whenever I have had people joke about my faith ,
I tell them it’s not something you can’t learn from books , not something I can show you in factual evidence, nothing I can put on a table for all to see and dissect bit by bit,
It’s a spiritual thing , something you must discover for your self,
How can you explain the colors and shape of a rainbow to a sparrow ?

Hmmmn. The same could be said of Fairies or joining Jonestown .

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Atheists believe there is no God.

They say theists commit the fallacy of “begging the question” when they say there is a God.

Why is saying there is no God also not the fallacy of “begging the question”?

I think its because Atheists hold that religious People seem to believe in a “god of the gaps” to explain things that are yet not explained.

Just a meaningless “space filler” that doesn’t really answer the problem.

So “saying there’s no god” is not, for Atheists, begging the question … because it is in fact a refusal to accept what they regard as pretend-explanations.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

You ever come across that “enlightened Athiest” who shoots down all your arguments for anything as being logical fallacies? What do you in these scenarios?

Well, does the argument you make appear to match the fallacy that it is being labeled with? If it does it may be time for a new argument (or to reconsider it). If not it may be a teaching opportunity to the other person about fallacies.

 

[Ignatius]

Atheists believe there is no God.

They say theists commit the fallacy of “begging the question” when they say there is a God.

Why is saying there is no God also not the fallacy of “begging the question”?

Begging the Question
petitio principii (also known as: assuming the initial point, assuming the answer,)
Description: Any form of argument where the conclusion is assumed in one of the premises. Many people use the phrase “begging the question” incorrectly when they use it to mean, “prompts one to ask the question”. That is NOT the correct usage. Begging the question is a form of circular reasoning.
Logical Forms:
Claim X assumes X is true.
Therefore, claim X is true.
Example #1:
Paranormal activity is real because I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.
**Explanation: **The claim, “paranormal activity is real” is supported by the premise, “I have experienced what can only be described as paranormal activity.” The premise presupposes, or assumes, that the claim, “paranormal activity is real” is already true.
Example #2:
The reason everyone wants the new “Slap Me Silly Elmo” doll is because this is the hottest toy of the season!
**Explanation: **Everyone wanting the toy is the same thing as it being “hot,” so the reason given is no reason at all—it is simply rewording the claim and trying to pass it off as support for the claim.
Exception: Some assumptions that are universally accepted could pass as not being fallacious.
People like to eat because we are biologically influenced to eat.

What is it Not?

To beg the question does not mean “to raise the question.” (e.g. “It begs the question, why is he so dumb?”) This is a common error of usage made by those who mistake the word “question” in the phrase to refer to a literal question. Sadly, the error has grown more and more common with time, such that even journalists, advertisers, and major mass media entities have fallen prey to “BTQ Abuse.”
While descriptivists and other such laissez-faire linguists are content to allow the misconception to fall into the vernacular, it cannot be denied that logic and philosophy stand to lose an important conceptual label should the meaning of BTQ become diluted to the point that we must constantly distinguish between the traditional usage and the erroneous “modern” usage. This is why we fight.

 

[Ignatius]

Well, does the argument you make appear to match the fallacy that it is being labeled with? If it does it may be time for a new argument (or to reconsider it). If not it may be a teaching opportunity to the other person about fallacies.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think its because Atheists hold that religious People seem to believe in a “god of the gaps” to explain things that are yet not explained.

Just a meaningless “space filler” that doesn’t really answer the problem.

So “saying there’s no god” is not, for Atheists, begging the question … because it is in fact a refusal to accept what they regard as pretend-explanations.

Then how is it that saying there is no God is also not a pretend-explanation for anything?

 

[livingwordunity]

So how do you answer them when they accuse you of doing the same and reword what you just posted to echo from the other side?

It’s not the same. Authentic Christianity requires that one work at making radical changes to their life to be more Christ-like which means constantly striving for self-denial and self-sacrifice, whereas an atheist can continue indulging in sin because they believe there is no one to judge them for it after they die. Belief in God stands in the way of self-indulgence.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Belief in God stands in the way of self-indulgence.

Disbelieving in God stands in the way of nothing.