Thursday, January 22, 2015

Re:Re: Logical Fallacies Atheists Make (Part 2)



This post continues my refutation of what some atheist fool wrote in a lame attempt to shoot me down. If you missed part one, here's a link.

Here's a link to the atheist's part two

Dicto simpliciter

First, the Example is nothing but a straw man argument (more on that later). The atheist would not say that all religious people bomb buildings (though, if one were to include abortion clinics and discount war zones, a corollary could be made between religious motivations and the propensity to engage in mayhem)."

Funny the writer uses that example: since Roe vs Wade, only two abortion clinics have been bombed, both were bombed by the same man who has since been caught, and the bomber even admitted in writing that he agrees more with Nietzsche (an atheist philosopher, by the way) than he does with the Bible. 
So congrats, atheist writer: instead of proving your point, you wound up proving mine. 

Post hoc ergo propter hoc
An ironic example, one almost too easy for me to use, is that of prayer. You may pray for Uncle Joe to get well, and he may get well, but that doesn't mean that prayer caused him to get well (though this may rather be an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc). The author's Example is fatuous and her Exception is blatantly wrong; correlation can only ever establish a causal link. It can never prove causation on its own."

Either the writer wasn't paying attention to the point being made or doesn't seem to be aware of the fact there are several versions of prayer. The one he used is intercessory prayer, but there are at least nine other types. The point being made was atheists use one type of prayer and at the expense of the others, say overall prayer doesn't work. Well, if it doesn't work, how do you explain these studies?

Naturalistic fallacy
"The author is so wrong about the formulation of the naturalistic fallacy that I am having trouble determining where to begin. Reducing a vein of thought that spans Hume, Kant, Bentham, and Moore to the rubbish above is almost criminal. The author neglects the is-ought problem as well as Moore's discussion of trying to define "good" reductively in terms of natural properties. The author's Example is again a non-sequitur, since the origins of life may be mutually exclusive of a deity, depending on the definition of the latter."

Actually, I'm 100% right on this. While I am familiar with Hume and Kant, I had to look up what was meant by Bentham and Moore. (Upon researching this, the author was most likely referring to Jeremy Bentham and G.E. Moore). 
I like how the author believes this is an is-ought problem when the fallacy itself doesn't address the "how so?" part of the argument, namely how are we supposed to determine something is true or false based on evidence either not designed or not equipped to answer the question to begin with? The example I gave was saying God doesn't exist just because science can't prove God exists.
Since when did Christians or any other group ever claim that? For that matter, can we prove logic exists by putting it in a test tube?
Do you see how stupid the naturalistic fallacy gets after some time?

Non Sequitur
"The first sentence is an example of post hoc ergo propter hoc, not necessarily a non-sequitur. The second sentence hearkens back to the author's formulation of argumentum ad populum. All told, though, this is probably the least incorrect analysis so far."

Too bad for the author, this is his most incorrect take. The example I gave was ice cream sales rise at the same time car theft rises, but even though I said it was foolish to say ice cream causes car theft, I never said what the real reason was behind the connection:
Ice cream sales go up in the summer time, which is also the same time of year most car theft happens. 
Sometimes deep thought just isn't needed to reach the obvious conclusion.

One-Sided Assessment (This is a long one so let's break it down):

Fittingly, this analysis comes directly after the discussion of non-sequitur for without a definition of the latter, we could not discuss the former."
What's that supposed to mean? The earlier one was talking about using all evidence and forming an incorrect conclusion; this one is talking about ignoring evidence because it doesn't lead to the conclusion you want.

The One-Sided Argument, a variant of special pleading which is conspicuously omitted from the author's list of fallacies, ignores evidence and counterargument from opposing views."
Actually, it was never mentioned because it has nothing to do with anything. Special pleading is when you cite an exception to a rule without justifying the exception. That hasn't happened yet by me.

While anyone entering a debate should set ground rules regarding topic, support, and permitted tactics, the claiming a separate definition for religious "evidence" is special pleading at best, and intellectual dishonesty at worst."
How? Dictionaries and indeed even casual use of language do it all the time. This is why word meanings change over time. Going back to the naturalistic fallacy for a moment, how would the atheist claiming science is all we need be any different? The author's entire take is self-refuting from the get-go.

The theist may pompously call into question scientific research and accepted theories, often in a derogatory way (I'm looking at you, Red Hat Guy), but will cry foul when it is pointed out that personal experience is not proof of god."
A) the part about questioning theories doesn't mean flat out rejection of said theories.
b) the most trusted scientific theories used today all came from Christian thinkers, not atheist.
c) If personal experience shouldn't count as proof of God, then an atheist's story of why they gave up religion, or the reasons they have for not believing shouldn't count as evidence either. You can't have it both ways.

 I sincerely hope that no one pointing out prison religious demographics, without more, is doing so in order to comment on the existence of a god."
They have and I have proof. Nice try though.

"The statement rather deals with religious claims of ethical exclusivity. And as I would for the statement, "God exists", I require proof that said study does not exist. At least you can show that."
The FBI even denies the existence of the study on belief inmates have, but that aside for a moment, are atheists expecting us to forget that atheist leaders who didn't believe they were answerable to a higher power are the same people who slaughtered their own people in the millions for the crime of defying them?
And don't hand me that bull about "God killed millions too". Wrong. I suggest reading the book Is God a Moral Monster? for the correct interpretation of those verses.

The whole point was to show atheists are NOTORIOUS for ignoring evidence they don't feel like listening to. I've said several people tell me they did show evidence to an atheist and every time the atheist pretended like nothing was said. 

Red herring
I am running out of novel ways to point out the disjunct between the author's definition of a logical fallacy and her Examples thereof"
That sucks for the author then, because I'm not running out of bullets to shoot him down with anytime soon.

By her own words, though, an exception can be made to this "rule" if I can show the link between the supposed red herring and the argument"
Let me know when the author actually does that.

The author's Example is somewhat of a straw man and is badly worded."
Wrong. Your take was badly thought out. Try again.

I see no reason why atheism can't be a religious stand in that it is a lack of belief in any and all divine mysteries. If, however, she is asserting that atheism is a religious belief, then she is clearly mistaken."
Nope. I'm not mistaken at all:

A better formulation would be, if atheism is a belief, then "off" is a TV channel."
Well, that's a category mistake if I've ever seen one. A TV being off means it can't be on any channel. The property to be on a channel is gone. However, that doesn't take away from the obvious proof atheism is a belief.

Slippery slope
As an aside, the slippery slope argument, used to much effect in Common Law countries, remains one of the arguments I hate most, and one I feel is the least supported. The text of actual court decisions can be found that include this argument with regard to homosexuality and bestiality. Asinine.

First of all, how can bestiality be justified under any circumstances? And as far as homosexuality is concerned, that's the best example of how atheists commit the slippery slope: they say gays should get married because straights divorce at a high rate, and we have racial equality so why can't we have gay equality, and….see how asinine THIS really is? 

I see no connection between the author's definition of Slippery Slope and her Example. I cannot tell whether she has mis-worded her thoughts, whether she has not understood some sort of argument presented to her, or whether she is simply making up stuff ad hoc. And as to the special pleading Exception, I can only say. Speaking of things needed, I require a drink now, as this is wearing me thin.

And I still don't see how he made the connection between how I write and whether I'm female. I know atheists think gender is relative but still…
As for my example, it's pretty obvious I was making fun of how it doesn't make sense to reject all gods just because some have proven to be false. Perhaps the writer doesn't understand basic English?
However, since he is under the impression I am female:

Trust me, sweetie: no one deserves a whiskey sour IV unit more than I do reading your inane drivel. 

The author's description is pretty accurate save that she omits the point of setting up a Straw Man, which is to be able to easily knock it down."
Actually, you can wind up ignoring the original point made and pretend none was ever made in the first place. Atheists seem to be masters at ignoring the obvious, as you will soon see in this case.

 I fail to see, though, how that premise relates to using crime rates in Christian nations to show that Christians kill each other."
See? Ignored the point trying to be made. The REAL point is atheists try to use this to show a contradiction that doesn't actually exist in Christianity.

 "While it may not be the strongest argument, were the premise supported, it would help to disprove the any notion of religion's ethical exclusivity."
How? Sure, sadly people who say they're Christian do horrible things but Christ said not all who call Him Lord will enter the Kingdom. Atheists not only have no such check but are also responsible for all human atrocities of the 20th century.  

I'm at a loss as to what point there is in heaven or hell that the premise ignores the teachings of the bible. Such a blanket statement is meaningless without proper support or citation."
Here you go:

And that's how the attempt at refuting me ended. I know he said at the end that he'd post a part three, but since that was posted in June of 2014 and this was posted on January 2015, I don't think anything is going to come of it. 

No comments:

Post a Comment