Have you ever noticed how Atheists do not recognize their own logical fallacies?

Question

Atheists love to point out where a person of faith is lacking in logic yet never seem to recognize when their own logic is failing them.

On another question about being ‘born Atheist’ an Atheist tried to convince me that since ‘feral children’ were studied who seemed to have no knowledge of G-d, that knowledge of G-d is taught and not valid. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Ar4K8HM.QvUHEeQc81Pjwxrty6IX?qid=20070611164940AAZ7Kkn


And then some other Atheist posted a half thought out algebraic attempt to prove Atheism as a question. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AsiaTfj4V89hzJOoBQG9.03ty6IX?qid=20070612005612AA2yDWs&show=7#profile-info-WwNX1e2vaa

That got me thinking about algebra and Logical Fallacies.

Let’s accept the study that these “feral children” do not in fact care or know about G-d, for the sake of argument. I’ll try to keep this simple.

The logical function of this argument would be;

If
A-Feral children have no knowledge of G-d.
Then;
B-Knowledge of G-d is taught.
Therefore
C- G-d is not a valid concept and would not exist without people to teach it.

However this same reasoning can be used for other things as well;

If
A- Feral children have no knowledge of evolution (or quantum theory).
Then;
B-Knowledge of evolution (or quantum theory) is taught.
Therefore;
C- Evolution (or quantum theory) is not a valid concept and would not exist without people to teach it.

This is called a FALSE CHAIN PATTERN. It can be done with almost anything from G-d to the big bang or whatever. It is called a Logical Fallacy, because it is ILLOGICAL thinking.

It can also be resolved;

If
A-Feral Children are uneducated, unsophisticated and ignorant.
Then;
B-Feral Children do not have knowledge of an enormous amount of subjects.
Therefore;
C-Feral children are valid sources for information regarding these subjects.

Now that’s a rational way to look at things! (Insert sarcasm)

Now for a Logical Chain Pattern;

If
A-Feral Children are uneducated, unsophisticated and ignorant.
Then;
B-Feral Children do not have knowledge of in an enormous amount of subjects.
Therefore;
C-What Feral children believe is inconsequential to the validity of those subjects.

PS
As an anthropologist I believe in evolution.


Please post your own logical fallacies.

Bobbylips- "If all men evolved from apes...why didn't all apes evolve?"
That's one of my favorites too.

fireboss226- How does that apply to anything I wrote? Typical Atheist irrationality.

Rocky K- I'm not a Christian. I'm a Heathen. And I am free to post my thoughtful questions here just as much as Atheists are free to post their thoughtless criticisms.

Your sarcasm proves that you have no rational response.

Printninja posted a link to a website which in th every first sentence tells you that it is factually based.

Printninja posted a link to a website which in the very first sentence tells you that it is not factually based.

Kenshin Himura- Excellent point! We have no idea what the grandchildren of feral children will come to believe. We would have to leave them alone for several generations to find that out. That would not be very humane so I am against it.

But WE as humans today are the several hundred generational grandchildren of wild animals. Did belief in god just spring out of the ground, or did we grow to understand it better over thousands of years as any other art science or philosophy?

Benji-It is a well attested to fact that South American Indians did believe in the divine before they were force converted to Christianity.

I think it’s funny how all the Atheists just assume I’m a Christian and that debunking Christina concepts of G-d has any effect on me. Thank you all for proving the point I made here;
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiP_CaWLhXluFyCKhP2MiqLty6IX?qid=20070611133019AAFQknD

HourglassJoPeCa- I just believe in treating Atheists on Y! the way most of them treat people of faith.

Deirdre H- I think I love you.

Printninjai- I agree it is pointless to argue with people such as yourself who have a lower standard of proof for their argument than they do for the opposing position.

Answer 1

Everyone commits a logical fallcy now and then.

Feel free to point them out just as we do.

It helps everyone to learn.

I don't know what all the other atheists are going off about, your examples appear valid to me.

I guess the only catching point regarding feral children and god is that if children are never taught about god, then can they, or their children, or their children's children ever come to the conclusion that god exists?

Facts of nature can be learned without being taught; they simply need to be observed. Can god? If not then god is only a taught concept and is not likely to exist.

Answer 2

First, atheists is only capitalized when it starts the sentence. Second, the only thing all atheists say is that they don't believe in god. Logic and theories are irelevant. The only time they are relevant is when a specific person's atheism is based on a lack of scientific evidence. This is not the case for all atheists ... Buddhists for example. Lastly you're just twisting the meaning using vocabulary to sideskirt the point. The point is, science doesn't assume things exist unless there is evidence to suggest it exists. Dieties have none, using what you're calling a logical fallacy (which is a misnomer, it's not a logical fallacy) we could also assert the existence of ANYTHING we cannot prove not to exist (which is ANYTHING that ANYONE could think up in their imagination). Using your logic every god in every religion exists. Along with bigfoot, loch ness, chupacabra, unicorns, leprechauns etc etc etc It really doesn't matter if you are a theist or not, why go through so much effort and argue so much about one simple truth: There is no evidence of a god or god(s). We all know this, it's not news to anyone, and yet we have these stupid burden of proof arguments. Why? If there is scientific evidence then please present it, if there's not can we stop this argument once and for all? The scientific minds will continue their views based on evidence, and the religious will continue their views based on faith. If you're okay with your faith, that's fine, but until you have evidence let it remain faith and not a scientific fact because it isn't.

Answer 3

Well, in the first case, I see your discussion with regard to feral children as having completely ignored the point. One major Christian tenet is that God has written the word in our hearts, and that we are simply returning to the god we know. If we know this god already, wouldn't feral children know this?

As to the second example you provided, it was obvious to me that the writing was satire, rather than an actual attempt to pose the question of the existence of God as a mathematical equation.

Methinks the anthropologist doth protest too much.

The truth is that there is no proof of the existence of any god. Nor can there be shown reason to believe that those who do believe in a God believe in what is a logical fallacy.

Honestly, I think that those in either position who try to ridicule the other are the greatest evidence that both positions are valid objects of ridicule themselves.

Answer 4

I believe that the atheist you talked with was not a prime example of atheism.
Keep in mind that atheism is not "belief in evolution".
Yes they usually come hand in hand but assuming that all atheist arguments are as illogical as the one you presented...no.
I see no connection bewteen feral children and Atheism.
If you're going to point out Feral children having knowledge of Evolution or not....then post that......do not say "Atheist argument with logical fallcies"
Just because the man/woman was an atheist does not make the argument "atheist", if you know what I mean.

Answer 5

Man, you are a walking definition of the phrase, "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing."


A - Hard drives have no information
Then;
B - Having no information makes you stupid
Therefore;
C - Stupid people are hard drives

Your reasoning isn't just specious, it's ASININE.

Go study these pages. Then come back and try debating me.

http://www.csicop.org/si/9012/critical-thinking.html

http://www.physics.smu.edu/pseudo/baloney.html
(particularly #13)


(BTW - I was the one who answered sideways' origina question with the FACTS about feral children. He just can't handle the TRUTH!)

EDIT: (sigh) This is pointless. It's impossible to debate with delusional people.

Answer 6

By the very definition, the only phalli (correct spelling, by the way) is in my underwear. You need to look up your words before you post your opinions. Oh, and by the way, Christians are usually the ones trying to convert everyone else; not the other way around. They are the one's that feel they have to support everything with historical fact - taken from the bible. Again, you are a Christian trying to impose his will and his beliefs on others that don't want them.

Answer 7

It is a well documented fact, no speculation required, that the South American Indians knew nothing about the Christian god and missionaries were sent to convert them.

Answer 8

ok let me explain you something.
There are things, subjects, topics, facts that no matter if you know about them or not, they exist...
You may not know the process that takes place in your body while you breath but that doesnt prevent it from happenening...
About feral children and god one may think that if you need of someone telling you that god exists for you to be able to accept him then it is a random piece of knowledge and if god is fair then he wouldnt allow things like that to happen.
If i was born in a out of the civilization town in Africa and no one would ever tell me a thing about jesus and god then i wouldnt know of him and therefore (according to christian mental scheme) i wouldnt be able to accept him in my heart or anywhere else and therefore i wouldnt be saved...In order to get saved you first need a random event in your life (that may happen or may not) that someone speaks you of god. That is what the feral child and god is all about. And i personnally think it cancels the "almighty" thing about your god...He may be almighty but he needs of others to be known.

Answer 9

have you seen any documentaries or read books on ferral children. I think not by what you wrote. these children NEVER acclimate to society in the way you implied. they always lack the bare minimum requirements one needs to retain certain feelings, emotions, or logic.

sorry that argument is out of gas, but at least you did try.

Answer 10

Your logic is off. Science is testable and provable. It is tanglible. It applies to and improves everyday life. None of the same can be said for any of the thousands of gods man has created. Whichever god you're speaking of, is nothing more than a delusion. You're comparing apples to oranges.