Posted by Gremlin on 14 February 1999 at 18:05:25:

In Reply to: Logic, and lack thereof. posted by The Host on 14 February 1999 at 17:13:51:

: Told you I'd come back were I so compelled.

Welcome back =)

: I've read pretty much the entire theological debate, stemmed by Utahraptor, and have come to several conclusions. Before I begin, I would like to remind you that I *am* an atheist; however, I have an open mind: and I despise fanatical, illogical arguments.

Shouldn't realy be necessary, but it might be a good idea.

: Now, Utah, I'm sorry, but you really haven't a proverbial leg to stand on. I don't want to sound cocky, but I have taken (well, actually, am taking) a course in logic, rhetoric and argumentation, and so I can easily spot fallicious statements. And your entire argument, your entire stance, your entire logical mode is based upon a single fallacy: that of petitio principii, or 'question begging.' This simply means that your arguments and conclusion are one in the same. You are, ironically (perhaps somewhat fittingly), making the same mistake that most fundamentalists make. You are stating that something is because it is.

True. Moreover, there's a prove-me-wrong metality to it, though any attempt seems to be met with something about primitive Earthers

: Simply reduced, your argument is, 'An all-powerful creator cannot exist because an all-powerful creator cannot exist.' This assumptative statement renders all of your supporting 'evidence,' indeed, your entire position, moot. You have presented absolutely no logical proof or clear evidence to support your case, because you have not structured your case in a logical way. You're saying that these things can't exist because they can't, and this is logically invalid. You have to show why they can't exist, which you haven't successfully done.

Technically impossible. Simply stating 'there is no god'is as brainless as stating 'there is a god'. Until the parameters of a god are determined [also impossible] there's no way to determine whether such a thing exists, or ever has. Then again, it becomes the responsibility of he who claims 'there is a god' to define its characteristics, and prove its existence.

: For, you see, faith is built on faith: the existance of an unknowable deity, inconceivable miracles. By its very nature, religion cannot be proven; however, it also cannot be disproved. Why not? Because religious arguments are based upon the assumption that an all-powerful being can exist and is above all laws of science; and all conflicting arguments are based upon the assumption that no all-powerful being can exist and nothing is above the laws of science. These are both assumptions, and although one may seem to make more logical sense than the other, it is still just an assumption, and really holds little weight. Lack of evidence is not, may I remind you, equivalent to lack of existence. And there is an annoying clause to religious beliefs: we can never know if the creator exists, and thus any argument that there is no evidence to support his existence falls because, by his very nature, there can be no evidence. Don't forget, if you stay up late to wait for Santa Claus, he won't come; if you search for god, you'll never find him.

That 'logic' never made a lot of sense. It seems tantamount to the car's ability to have starter problems only in the even that the boogyman is lurching toward you =)

: I'm not saying that religious institutions are correct or even logical in their assertions. These are both arguments from ignorance: not only does lack of proof not constitute lack of existence, but something also cannot be considered true simply because lack of evidence to prove it false. Any argument of this sort falls flat; unfortunately, most of Utahraptor's evidence was based around this fallacy.

The burden of proof. Again.

: It is difficult to refute illogic with logic, and disasterous to further the use of illogic. And thus it is almost impossible to actually argue religion effectively; one can only point out the illogic in argumentation -- the question begging, the appeal to man, the complex questions, and any of a thousand other fallacies -- instead of directly arguing any point in the Bible. Why was Noah able to fit all of the animals into the Ark? Simple: it was a miracle. How can miracles exist if they blatantly contradict all known laws of science? Simple: they're miracles; by their very nature, they are contradictory to science. How, then, can miracles come into existance? Simple: an all-powerful creator commands them. Finally, how can an all-powerful creator exist, despite all science teaches us? Simple: he is all-powerful, and thus scientific rules need not apply.

Every cop's a criminal, and all the sinners [are] saints -- The Rolling Stones

: To include science in any religious debate -- no matter which side of the debate you are on -- is futile. Science and religion are inherently incompatible, and, because of the aforementioned argumentum ad ignorantum, cannot be logically used as evidence to either prove or deny the existence of god.

How many licks does it take to find god? THe world may never know...

: I also noticed that Utahraptor used a peculiar combination of circumstantial appeal to man and straw man argument.The latter means that he changed slightly what another was saying and argued that; the former means he attempted to cast doubt on one's testimony because of one's circumstances.

True. But most of us have been guilty of that. And people have been a lot more blatant about it. Have a look at some of the 'debates' I've ben having with Robert T Lee [apparently his real name, humourously enough] at alt.atheism.

: He did this in response to wyvern. Nowhere did wyvern actually mention his religious beliefs -- like me, he simply attacked Utah's argumentation -- but Utahraptor refuted wyvern's unmentioned (but assumed) beliefs anyway, and essentially said that wyvern was disagreeing with him because iof said beliefs: since his views are obviously biased because of his unmentioned (but assumed) beliefs, wyvern's rebuttal must be ignored! (Just for the record, of course wyvern is biased. So am I. So is Utah. That's why we're debating this. It's called having an opinion. Attacking someone for having an opinion, which I noticed Utahraptor did, is ludicrous!)

Not an opinion so much as a position. The primary difference between realists and arealists is that realists have no faith. It's technically impossible to have an opinion based on faith; opinions are derived from empirical data. Okay, so it's apples and oranges, but still...

: And thus, one finds that almost all of Utahraptor's arguments fall. This is not to say I don't agree with him. All I'm saying is that, well, he lost this round, badly. You will never convince anyone of anything with false logic; you'll only make youself look like an idiot, not to mention a stubborn ass. Which is why we like to sit back and laugh at the Fundamentalists.

Right. There again, I've run across far worse examples of I know you are, but what am I debates. And, to be honest, it would probably work better without the typos, since that just gives the opposition something else to complain about.

: I don't think anybody who refuted Utahraptor really brought their own beliefs into battle with them, which is admirable. Most responses seemed to attack his logic and lack of evidence more than anything; however, as I mentioned before, Utahraptor misinterperted this, and created a straw man debate, changing the opposition's argument. This, too, is something fundamentalists do: Utah, in essence, said: 'There is no god, and this is why. . .' To which he received the response: 'That doesn't make sense, and there is little weight to your argument.' To which Utahraptor, in turn, responded: 'You're just saying that 'cause you're a stoopid religious fanatic.'

Primitive Earther Dummy Boy, I think; which fails to make a lot of sense, unless he's posting from Mars.

: Who's the fanatic? I thought it was rather amusing to see the (semi-) atheist turn fanatic, while those defending religion remain cool-headed and logical. Go figure.

My best guess is that he thought his point made perfect sense, and was disappointed that the rest of us didn't bandwagon our ways into his school of thought.

: Here's my suggestion to you, Utahraptor: certainly fundamentalist's beliefs make little sense, and certainly they use horrible logic. But it's no use trying to deny them by appealing to science. You can't really refute anything they say, cause they don't give you much to refute. So just sit back and laugh, ocassionally point out their flawed logic, and enjoy the show. Let them do their thing, and feel quietly confident that you know better.

Agreed. Though we're still having a hell of a lot of fun in alt.atheism >:)

: -The Host

: [BTW, though you claimed no intentions of offending anyone, you certainly were rather offensive. Although offense can be subjective, it can also be implied, and when you blatantly call something that is an ingrained part of one's beliefs, life, and indeed existence stoopid, well, it would be natural for one to take offense: through that wonderful process of the mind known as 'transferrance,' it would be natural to assume that if you were to call someone's important beliefs stoopid, you'd be, in turn, calling that person stoopid too. Besides, you should expect hostile reaction whenever you insult religion, and you should be prepared to deal with it. Keep a level head, and make yourself seem the better man; your opponent a radical. You did not do that this time.]

: [On that note, saying 'I was offending my own beliefs, too,' is NOT a valid justification. You were obviously prepared for such an insult, and expecting it. Not everybody is as perfect as you.]

: [And, finally, you are being extremely presumptuous in many ways, Utahraptor. One example that particularly irked me is your continuing assertion -- after being told otherwise -- that it is common knowledge that there is a soul, which can be passed on through cloning. It is not common knowledge, it is not proven, and it is certainly not a scientific fact. You seem to often confuse fact and belief, which is precisely what fundamentalists do. Again, you seem the radical, which is a shame, because you have the more realistic stance.]

Probably the most ironic thing about the issue of offence is that the only time I've ever seen anyone claim to be offended on this board [before now] was everytime anything antisemetic [however satirical] was posted. Maybe it's all a spot of revenge =)

--Gremlin

Follow Ups:

• Re: Logic, and lack thereof. Utahraptor 15 February 1999 at 09:07:34 (1)
  • Primitive Earther Dummy Boys Gremlin 15 February 1999 at 11:56:14 (0)