by Superfine Apostate 43 Replies latest jw friends
Argument from incredulity: "I don't understand how [evolution / quantum physics / Apollo moon landings / take your pick] could be true, therefore it must be false."
A favorite of Bible thumpers everywhere. "I can't understand how anything so complex as the universe could arise without a designer, therefore, [since I am obviously the most intelligent person who ever existed] it must have been designed by God."
So tell me
Is this topic a discussion about faulty arguments?
Or is it about 'faulty arguments that theists use'?
Yep, there are plenty of logical fallacies that crop up on JWD on a regular basis.
In order to construct a logical argument, it is imperative to understand what these logical fallacies are. It is just as important, however, to understand what they are not. I've seen numerous replies that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding what is and is not a logical fallacy.
Based on observation, the use of logical fallacies, as well as misunderstandings of what they are and are not, coupled with lack of reading comprehension, can generally be ascribed to the non-theists on JWD. Ok, ok, there are a smattering of folks on both sides of the belief spectrum.
For ehjumuhkasionuhl purposes, I provide the following:
Leolaia recently supplied me with a new favorite, Type I and Type II statistical errors.
Once a Christian always a Christian-Stalin was raised as a Christian. Stalin had millions murdered. Therefore Christianity is evil. (it doesn't matter whether Stalin had become an Atheist or not). Mao heard a Bible verse once, therefore Chinese oppression is Christianity's fault. (An exaggeration I know but it illustrates the point).
Either/Or-You are either a rational atheist or an irrational theist.
Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc- Cause and effect is erroneously inferred. "The more educated a person is the less likely they are to believe in God". "The lower a person's IQ is the more likely they are to be Fundamentalists."
Argument from Authority. This one ignore that we all have beliefs and biases that can cloud our judgement.
"I read Dawkins. He is a great scientist. He wrote belief is deluded. Ergo belief must be. " (This one is frequently married to "Cult of Personality")
Argument from incredulity: " I don't understand how [evolution / quantum physics / Apollo moon landings / take your pick] could be true, therefore it must be false."
Good one!
"I don't understand how a benevolent omniscient omnipotent God can be correlelated with the existence of evil. Therefore God must not exist"
Burn
Appeal to Authority - This great thinker/writer/scientist, etc., researched and wrote such-and-such disproving such-and-such, so you're a hopeless fool if you don't get it.
Sylvia
BTS:
Touche!
Hey Jgnat!
Maybe I am just dense (I have taken Stats however), but I don't see how that applies to formal (and informal) logical fallacies, past the possibility of false positives. Could you pleas enlighten me?
Thanks,
Burn
BurntheShipism
BAism
LOL!
I kid my brothers in the one true faith!
Lol!
nvrgnbkism:
1. The habit of voluminous cutting and pasting of articles from all over the internet that include other's logical fallacies. Example:" that guy is afflicted with nvrgnbkism, he cuts and pastes everything that he reads onto <internet forum> without realizing it 's full of logical fallacies".
2. The habit of voluminous cutting and pasting of articles from all over the internet without summarizing what the purpose of the cut and paste job was supposed to prove or disprove, etc.
BA- Lol, jus' havin' a little fun with wit' my liddle buddy!
