Atheists...would you say you oppose illogical arguments?

Question

If so, then I have a question for you. Why do you let illogical arguments slide when they are made by other atheists? That doesn't seem to logical to me...nor is it very open minded. Why would you attack and point out illogical arguments from believers (and yes I agree there are plenty of those), but then ignore illogical arguments from atheists. I hope it isn't just because it backs up your belief (non-belief, whatever you want to call it). Take a look at these questions, are these arguments not using some sort of fallacy or false logic? Why was it not pointed out in any of them...why do some atheist even agree with this false logic?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071207113735AAqhUxk

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071207110625AAjqSYd

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071207064715AA0YtcF

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071207100037AATmatd

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071206085250AAALBHp

Skalite: So you think all of those questions were jokes?

Jeff S: Please tell me which 4 are "good" questions...and have a solid logical argument?

skeptic: That is very true...but then again believers aren't the ones who claim they are purely logical and free thinking.

The second question is a false correlation. Assuming that since Christains believe in one "invisble" being...then they must believe in all. Is that logic?

Question 5: This is making an argument that if these 100 sampled believers fail the lie detector...then God does not exist. How does that logically make sense to you.

After reading it over and over though...I can't decide if the asker was atheist or a believer....LOL.

Eleventy: Yes...I agree I have seen you challenge others regardless of their stance. Props to you.

It doesn't matter if Q2 is saying "must" or just asking "why". That assumption is based off a false correlation.

Wow Jeff...I was hoping you would leave #1 alone.

He takes an answer from a riddle...and puts it together with a line from the Bible. And claims that the Kingdom of God must equal nothing? Do you really buy that?

Maybe I should of done those one at a time...that kind of got out of hand.

Answer 1

That's a great question. I personally think that it is more important to be intellectually honest than to conclude atheism is true. I've challenged atheists here (and have been mistook for as Christian because of it) and I've also learned much by atheists calling out my illogical arguments.

Of course, if I were to spend my time addressing every ridiculous post here, it wouldn't leave time for much else.

Answer 2

>Atheists...would you say you oppose illogical arguments?

That's right.

>If so, then I have a question for you. Why do you let illogical arguments slide when they are made by other atheists?

I don't.

>Take a look at these questions, are these arguments not using some sort of fallacy or false logic?

Okay, let's have a look...

1. This one makes sense in one direction, but not in the other. I think what the asker meant in this case was not that the kingdom of God is equivalent to nothing, but rather that the poor can't have nothing if we assume the Bible's statement to be accurate. In other words, the 'nothing' riddle is inconsistent with the statement in the Bible, which means that either the riddle or the Bible is inaccurate. The other possibility is that the asker actually meant to conclude that the kingdom of God is nothing, but I would consider that illogical because we can't assume that both the riddle and the Bible are true. Alternatively it could just be a joke.

2. I don't see anything wrong with this one, besides that it's a little backwards. God, Zeus, Santa Claus and people in invisibility cloaks are all invisible, so in the sense of their visibility ALONE, they all merit equal belief. The asker is, then, wondering what other attributes Zeus, Santa Claus and people in invisibility cloaks possess that makes them less worthy of belief than God. It would have made it more clear to state it the other way around (i.e., 'Considering that you don't believe in these other invisible things, why do you believe in God?'), but there's nothing actually wrong about it.

3. Again, this is a perfectly valid question. It's definitely silly, but it doesn't make any logical mistakes and it can be answered truthfully and logically. Mostly, it's a joke.

4. If we ignore the fact that this is phrased as a question rather than a statement, it is illogical. Why? Because the asker would be assuming that the harm caused by not having a father in one's family is no greater than the other harms that would come to a person during their life. So long as the harm of not having a father IS greater, the answer can quite logically be 'no'.

5. The problem with this is, lie detectors do not detect the actual truth, they only detect what someone BELIEVES to be the truth. In other words, people might have had delusions of Jesus, in which case they would be able to pass a lie detector with the statement that they have seen Jesus. And similarly, just because people were lying about having seen Jesus doesn't mean Jesus necessarily doesn't exist; it reduces the quantity of evidence, yes, but not necessarily to the critical point. So yes, if the asker really is talking about going ahead with what they're saying there, they're not being logical.

Answer 3

There is nothing illogical about the first question. That riddle is one of the favorite things that believers like to pass around. It is true that the Bible says (about the poor) that theirs is the kingdom of God, so the questioner asks why those that think the riddle is so great consider the "kingdom of God" to be "nothing".

As for the second question, what is illogical about that? You consider it logical to believe in an omnipotent, invisible, magical, supernatural being for which there is no evidence, and then, if you're Christian, you have the added burden of believing that some guy is the actual physical manifestation of that being come to life on Earth. It's asking you why you have no problem fully and completely believing in something, (not to mention devoting your life to it) that has no more evidence for it's existence than any of the other things mentioned. (And yet, you're able to completely dismiss the other things as being illogical.)

As for the third question, what's illogical about it? It seems to me that you're just adding that one becuase it makes you mad for some reason.

The fourth question is a perfectly legitimate question. It's showing a statement made by the Archbishop of York saying that not having a father figure in your life is harmful, and therefore it would be better to not even exist. So does he and the people who agree with him also think that having *any* harmful things in your life (which is impossible) is so bad that it would be better for you not to exist? (Or is he just picking on that one thing?)

OK...the fifth one I'll say is a bit illogical. I think that there are people who claim to have seen or spoken to Jesus, and they really believe it. Even if you did hook up 100 such people to lie detectors, it wouldn't be proof or disproof of God even if they *all* had positive or negative results.
(But for the record, the question was not from an atheist...if you read it you'll see he says he's Christian.)

Answer 4

The point is that belief is based on an illogical premise, i.e. that there is something out there for which no evidence exists or can possibly exist, but it's existence should be believed in anyway. Yes, of course atheists can and do make illogical statements, but atheism is not based on an illogical premise.

Nope, it seems that you misread the second question. It doesn't say they "must" believe in other invisible beings, it asks why they don't. The logical implication would be that the reasons for why they don't should also apply to the one invisible being they do believe in.

Answer 5

Searcher: I just read your response to the question about the historical evidence for religious figures outside of holy books.

Holy books were written by man. The fossil record was not.

Holy books do not provide evidence of anyone's actual existence. You're not going to open the Old Testament and find Job's femur. But you can most certainly find a dinosaur femur in certain late-Cretaceous sediments. You can even find dinosaur poop.

Yes, I'm attacking your illogical argument, but I'm not selective of what illogic I will attack. It just seems that a lot of illogical arguments flow from the fundamentalist Christian side of things. You cannot make a logical argument for the existence of God because faith transcends logical thought. It's a matter of where you draw the line between belief based on evidence and a leap of faith. Many people require a lot more evidence before they can make that leap of faith.

Answer 6

I'll admit that some atheists use illogical arguments sometimes. So do many believers but I almost never see believers rushing to point out the faults of other believers.



EDIT:
The 2nd one was actually a good one. Why don't you try it?

The 5th was from a believer.


EDIT 2:
That's a fair point. But many believers claim they are logical.


EDIT 3: That's not what the 2nd question was pointing out. It is saying that if you use the methods of faith to believe in things, you could equally believe in the other things. Without evidence of either, your beilef is just as good.

Answer 7

Specifically, which fallacies are you refering to?

In question one, the person is asking for clarification.

The 2nd question asks a simple question: why do religious people believe in one undetectable thing and not others.

The 3rd asks for external sources for material contained within holy books. This is akin to asking for evidence of Athene outside of books of Greek myths. Completely logical.

The 4th question is close to a fallacy - it is a bit of a slipery slope argument - but the idea that children should not be born because they will be born into what the Archbishop considers less than optimal circumstances does seem to suggest that children in impovershed nations, of mentally or physically handicapped parents, or other such less-than-perfect situations might be better of having never existed. It is the Archbishop's logic that is flawed.

The 5th question suggests that a flawed technology could detect the "truth" of a unknowable. This one is off, so I'll give you credit for this one. Since religion is largely a matter of interpretation and perception, and since the lie detector relies on the chemical effects of lying, it would not work in this instance.

So... you score 20%. 25% if I give you a bit of credit on #4.

Answer 8

Of course, how silly of us.
We're all the same. I, for one, take every individual question separately, and each person individually.
If I think a question, or argument is weak, then I will say so.
That said, I'm pretty sure I could raise a list twice that size of illogical theist arguments.

Answer 9

I've seen atheists critique other atheists on R&S. I've been caught making mistakes a few times, myself. I don't expect atheists to demonstrate infallible logic all day long. However, I'm a more than a little troubled by the frequency with which religious people employ fallicious arguments.

Answer 10

Are you kidding me? I'm not gonna go look through all those questions. All I'm gonna say is that "logic" is pretty relative. What's logical to some will be illogical to others. Logic isn't absolute, so there's no point in what you're saying whatsoever.