Why fallacious reasoning matters

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It IS the point of the forum! But those most guilty of propounding these various fallacious arguments refuse point-blank to "discuss" anything with regard to the truth or otherwise of their beliefs.

They do not "discuss" - they state as incontrovertable "fact".

Thast is the problem, and, regardless of how many threads that they destroy with these fallacies, nothing, no action whatsoever, is going to change that fact.

There is, unfortunately, one simple choice to make - keep trying to show the errors of these arguments to their perpetrators or quit the forum.

Unless, perhaps, the Moderators can come up with some sort of limit to the numbers of "pro" and "con" posts that are to be allowed (say, three of each) before a thread is locked as an impassable dead-end.   

Before becoming a Christian I believed religion was being rammed down my throat.....in fact I came to realise that it was the mere mention of religion which was troubling me.........

Most religious people on this board recognise that they are in a predominantly non religious society.

So how do you talk when you have something you believe to be much more than a philosophical punt?

[BeRational]

Before becoming a Christian I believed religion was being rammed down my throat.....in fact I came to realise that it was the mere mention of religion which was troubling me.........

Most religious people on this board recognise that they are in a predominantly non religious society.

So how do you talk when you have something you believe to be much more than a philosophical punt?

Explain what you believe and why.

If the why has fallacious reasoning, change your reasoning or accept that you have no justification for your beliefs.

I think that is all that is being asked, believe what you want, it's only when you say this is objectively true, and therefore true for me too, that the problems arise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella,

As no one has demonstrated a way to establish the objective truth in relation to the supernatural or to morals and ethics, presumably this forum can cater for discussions of our opinions about religion and religious concepts, ethics, morality, non-religious beliefs etc where there is no claim that any of them are objectively true.

You’d think so wouldn’t you. “God” as a branch of aesthetics or similar would be fine for those who like that kind of thing. The problem though is that more often than not it seems that theists claim “God” as a fact, and his thread is about what happens when they use broken reasoning to try to demonstrate that position.
 

We just discuss subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs in particular concepts, theories, ideas, morals, politics, ways of life, including beliefs in the supernatural. I thought that was the point of this forum.

Well, I’m not sure I’d want to claim to know what the point of the forum is but there’s a difference between “subjectively good or bad reasons for beliefs” and supposedly objectively good or bad reasons for belief. This thread is about those who think that bad thinking is a good way to demonstrate the latter. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Alas, I think a few saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion.
They were cruelly disappointed and any victories they claim are in fact emigrations due to boredom of their style.

And the king of the straw man walks among us again.

Just in case anyone should be taken in by this, no-one "saw this forum as the one where religion would be silenced in spectacular and public fashion". What some of us do though is to argue against the overreaching of the religious into unquestioned claims of fact, specifically when they use broken reasoning to do it.

[Bubbles]

Explain what you believe and why.

If the why has fallacious reasoning, change your reasoning or accept that you have no justification for your beliefs.

I think that is all that is being asked, believe what you want, it's only when you say this is objectively true, and therefore true for me too, that the problems arise.

Stop trying to tell others how to think.

[jeremyp]

I suppose it will depend on whether they regard bhs's understanding of logic as the sole understanding

There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.

He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.

With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.

[jeremyp]

Stop trying to tell others how to think.

Stop telling other people what to post.

[BeRational]

He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.

With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.

Then just point out when a fallacy is used, and the statement will have to be corrected or your challenge stands.

Try it.

[jeremyp]

He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself. He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.

You can back up your assertion with evidence of course.

No? What a surprise.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then just point out when a fallacy is used, and the statement will have to be corrected or your challenge stands.

Try it.

You are completely blind to his arguments by associating whatever he disagrees with something ridiculous even though there is no logical link nor good reason to do so........although he did come a pearler on it the other day.....(Vlad smiles).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You can back up your assertion with evidence of course.

No? What a surprise.

Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.

Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

He's not averse to a crafty fallacy himself.

Well, you've never identified one correctly yet but by all means try to do so now if you think that to be the case.

He will pepper what he writes with argumentum ad ridiculum...

You never have grasped this have you. If an argument you attempt for "God" works equally well for outcomes you think to be ridiculous, then you have a problem with your argument. It really would save a lot of time if you would finally grasp this simple enough point. 

...and argument from his own disbelieve and watches you guys ignore them.

I have no idea what you mean by "argument from his own disbelief" (and nor I suspect do you). When you attempt a logically false argument to demonstrate your position then pointing that out isn't an "argument from disbelief", it's just pointing out. It would for example be perfectly possibly for me to be a card-carrying god-botherer and still to be able to tell you where your arguments had gone off the rails.

With such unbridled pisstaking I wonder if this guy actually hates you people.

Aw, shucks - and again you fail to grasp that you cannot just ring fence "God" from the problems that bedevil your arguments. When those arguments lead to a conclusion that is as ridiculous as leprechauns (or whatever) then the problem is yours to fix it, and not just to throw the charge of "pisstaking" at in the hope the problems will thereby go away.     

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.

Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.

Flat wrong again. See Reply 37 to tell you why.

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

There aren't different varieties of logic, Hope.BHS's logic is the same as every logic everywhere in the Universe.

Yes, it's an odd charge isn't it: "Well, if you're going to use your logic to defeat me then...etc" as if in some way I'd carved out a special kind of logic all to myself, whereas the logic of the theist is somehow "better".

It's a bit like the, "well, if you're going to use facts you can prove anything" line as an argument.

Weird. 

[Bubbles]

Stop telling other people what to post.

I'm not!

Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.

People don't all have to think alike.

There are more ways of constructing arguments.

[jeremyp]

Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.

Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.

Ah no, that was you failing to understand an analogy, not a fallacy on anybody else's part.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are completely blind to his arguments by associating whatever he disagrees with something ridiculous even though there is no logical link nor good reason to do so........

Stop lying. The precise link is that when your argument works equally for "God" and for leprechauns, then it's probably a bad argument.

...although he did come a pearler on it the other day.....(Vlad smiles).

(Vlad lies).

[jeremyp]

I'm not!

Yes you are.

Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.

What's wrong with that? If you came across somebody thinking in a way that was obviously fallacious, would you not correct them?

People don't all have to think alike.

Well they do in your normal opinion.  For example, you have, on several occasions, tried to admonish me for thinking that Brexit is a disaster.

There are more ways of constructing arguments.

Arguments constructed with fallacies in them are worthless. Why can't we point that out?

[bluehillside Retd.]

jeremy,

Ah no, that was you failing to understand an analogy, not a fallacy on anybody else's part.

Quite. The problem he has here is that for reasons known only to himself his idea "God" should be exempted a priori from the charge of being ridiculous (though only presumably his god rather than, say, the Roman or Sumerian gods), so he focusses instead on outcomes we all agree to be ridiculous as if that somehow invalidates the falsification of his arguments. It actually does the opposite of that though - once you sweep away the special pleading of his god exemption, then when his arguments work equally for leprechauns what he should do is revisit his arguments rather than spit the dummy.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that though.       

[BeRational]

Frequent use of Leprechauns, unicorns and on one occasion A small Dragon who likes his tummy tickled.

Pure argumentum ad ridiculum. But I suppose it makes some of you guys moist.

This is a method to show that if your argument works for something which YOU also think is ridiculous, then your argument must either be wrong, or you also accept the ridiculous conclusion.

[BeRational]

I'm not!

Just pointing out others are trying to tell other people how to think.

People don't all have to think alike.

There are more ways of constructing arguments.

But any argument that is true must be free from fallacies.

[jeremyp]

But any argument that is true must be free from fallacies.

The fallacy fallacy! The conclusion might still be true even if the argument contains fallacies.

Only joking, but we need to be a bit more precise. An argument is valid if it leads from the premises to the conclusion without fallacy regardless of the truth of the premises. An argument is sound if it is free of fallacies and the premises are true. Only in this latter case can we assume the conclusion is true.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

jeremy,

Quite. The problem he has here is that for reasons known only to himself his idea "God" should be exempted a priori from the charge of being ridiculous (though only presumably his god rather than, say, the Roman or Sumerian gods), so he focusses instead on outcomes we all agree to be ridiculous as if that somehow invalidates the falsification of his arguments. It actually does the opposite of that though - once you sweep away the special pleading of his god exemption, then when his arguments work equally for leprechauns what he should do is revisit his arguments rather than spit the dummy.

I wouldn't hold your breath on that though.     

It's funny Hillside.....when you refer to Leprechauns as small Irishmen dressed in green supposedly at the end of rainbows I find I don't believe in them. When you change your definition and equate them completely as God I believe in them.......although they presumably cease to be a ''them'..............Surely changing your definitions depending on and during an argument is fallacious.....Antitheist fallacy hunters where are you?

[Bubbles]

Yes you are.

No I'm not

There is a difference between telling people what to post and trying to control someone by telling them how to think. I'm not telling anyone to post or not to post something, just not to try and control how others think.

What's wrong with that? If you came across somebody thinking in a way that was obviously fallacious, would you not correct them?

No, because it's a bit patronising like correcting someone's spelling, instead of looking at their argument, I'd disagree with them and give them my POV and why I thought something was as it was.
But people believe all sorts of things from experience, for example.

Well they do in your normal opinion.  For example, you have, on several occasions, tried to admonish me for thinking that Brexit is a disaster.

No not quite, I'm admonishing you because you are so completely negative on the subject of Brexit, almost to the point I think you enjoy being miserable about it.  I think Brexit is a disaster up to a point, the difference is I don't let myself become so negactive about it.
I tend to think that in time there will be good and bad things about it.  I think we need to be positive about it, now it's happened, otherwise it's a self fullfilling prophecy.
You have to let go, to see the opportunities that might spring up.

It's not good to be too negative.

Arguments constructed with fallacies in them are worthless. Why can't we point that out?

Because they arn't worthless. It's another persons POV.

There are so many fallacies that instead of holding interesting discussions on what people believe you can always find a fallacy to accuse them of instead.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

It then becomes an intellectual exercise, bashing the person over the head with fallacies instead of ingaging in what is actually being said.

It's trying to make everyone conform, so you squeeze out actual opinion.

A sort of point scoring!

You stop discussing the persons ideas,  and pick at the way the arguments are put together instead.

So it's like reading Wordsworth but being hung up with his spelling, until you've lost the plot.